|
|
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
|
OBRAZLOŽITVENI MEMORANDUM
|
|
1.
CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
1.1.
General context
|
1.
OZADJE PREDLOGA
1.1.
Splošno ozadje
|
|
This proposal
for a Directive aims to make it easier for Member States' authorities to
confiscate and recover the profits that criminals make from cross-border
serious and organised crime. It seeks to attack the financial incentive which
drives crime, to protect the licit economy against criminal infiltration
and corruption, and to return criminal profits to public authorities providing
services for citizens. It responds to the current economic context, where a
financial crisis and a slowdown in economic growth creates new opportunities
for criminals, increased vulnerabilities in our economy and financial system,
and new challenges for public authorities to finance growing needs for social
services and assistance.
|
Cilj tega predloga
direktive je organom držav članic olajšati zaplembo in izterjavo koristi, ki jo
pridobijo storilci čezmejnih hudih kaznivih dejanj in kaznivih dejanj
organiziranega kriminala. Poskuša odpraviti finančno spodbudo, ki daje zagon
kriminaliteti, zaščititi zakonite gospodarske dejavnosti pred vdorom
kriminalitete in korupcije ter vrniti koristi od kaznivih dejanj organom javne
uprave, ki zagotavljajo storitve za državljane. Ta predlog je odziv na sedanje
gospodarske razmere, v katerih finančna kriza in upočasnitev gospodarske rasti
ustvarjata nove možnosti za storilce kaznivih dejanj, na večje pomanjkljivosti
našega gospodarstva in finančnega sistema ter na nove izzive organov javne uprave
za financiranje vedno večjih potreb po storitvah socialnega varstva in socialni
pomoči.
|
|
Organised crime
groups are illegal enterprises designed to generate profit. They engage in a multitude of cross-border criminal
activities - such as drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, illicit
arms trafficking, and corruption - generating very large earnings.
|
Združbe
organiziranega kriminala so nezakonita podjetja, katerih namen je ustvarjanje
dobička. Ukvarjajo se s številnimi čezmejnimi kaznivimi dejavnosti – kot so trgovina
z mamili, trgovina z ljudmi, nezakonita trgovina z orožjem in korupcija – ki
ustvarjajo velike prihodke
|
|
At global
level, according to United Nations estimates, the total amount of criminal proceeds in 2009 was approximately USD 2.1 trillion, or 3.6%
of global GDP[1]. There are no reliable estimates of the
size of criminal profits in the European Union[2],
but in Italy the proceeds of organised crime laundered in 2011 have been
estimated by the Bank of Italy at € 150 billion. In the United Kingdom in 2006
organised criminal revenue was estimated at £15 billion.
|
Po ocenah
Združenih narodov je skupni znesek premoženjskih koristi, pridobljenih s
kaznivimi dejanji, leta 2009 na svetovni ravni znašal približno 2,1 bilijona
USD ali 3,6 % svetovnega BDP[1].
Zanesljivih ocen skupnega zneska premoženjskih koristi, pridobljenih s
kaznivimi dejanji v Evropski uniji, sicer ni[2],
Banka Italije pa je v Italiji premoženjske koristi organiziranega kriminala, ki
so bile predmet pranja denarja leta 2011, ocenila na 150 milijard EUR. V
Združenem kraljestvu je bil leta 2006 znesek prihodkov organiziranega kriminala
ocenjen na 15 milijard GBP.
|
|
The profits derived from these activities are laundered
and reinvested into licit activities. Organised crime
groups increasingly hide and reinvest assets in Member States other than the
one where the crime is committed[3]. This weakens our ability
to fight cross-border serious and
organised crime in the EU as a whole, and affects the
functioning of the Internal Market by distorting competition with legitimate
businesses and undermining trust in the financial system[4].
Finally, serious and organised crime deprives national governments and the EU
budget of tax revenues.
|
Dobiček iz teh
dejavnosti je predmet pranja denarja in se ponovno vloži v zakonite dejavnosti.
Združbe organiziranega kriminala vedno pogosteje skrivajo in ponovno vlagajo
sredstva v državah članicah, v katerih niso storile kaznivega dejanja[3]. To slabi našo sposobnost za
boj proti hudim kaznivim dejanjem čezmejnega in organiziranega kriminala v EU
kot celoti in vpliva na delovanje notranjega trga z izkrivljanjem konkurence
med podjetji, ki poslujejo zakonito, ter spodkopava zaupanje v finančni sistem[4]. Poleg tega so nacionalne vlade
in proračun EU zaradi hudih kaznivih dejanj in kaznivih dejanj organiziranega
kriminala prikrajšani za davčne prihodke.
|
|
All Member States should
therefore have in place an efficient system to freeze, manage and confiscate
criminal assets, backed by the necessary institutional setup, financial and
human resources. However, although regulated by EU and
national laws, confiscation of criminal assets remains underdeveloped and
underutilised. The overall
amount recovered from crime in the EU remains modest compared to the estimated
revenues of organised criminal groups[5]. For example, in 2009
confiscated assets amounted to € 185 million in France, £ 154 million in the
United Kingdom, € 50 million in the Netherlands and € 281 million in Germany.
|
Vse države članice bi zato morale imeti na
voljo učinkovit sistem za zamrznitev, upravljanje in zaplembo sredstev,
pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, ki bi imel ustrezno institucionalno zasnovo ter
finančne in človeške vire. Vendar pa je
institut zaplembe sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, kljub urejenosti
v zakonodaji EU in nacionalni zakonodaji še vedno premalo razvit in se premalo
uporablja. Skupni znesek premoženjske koristi, izterjane od storilcev kaznivih
dejanj v EU, je še vedno skromen v primerjavi z ocenjenimi prihodki
organiziranih hudodelskih združb[5].
Na primer, leta 2009 je bilo v Franciji zaplenjeno premoženje v višini
185 milijonov EUR, v Združenem kraljestvu 154 milijonov EUR,
na Nizozemskem 50 milijonov EUR in v Nemčiji
281 milijonov EUR.
|
|
As an effective
tool in the fight against organised and serious crime, confiscation of criminal
assets has been given strategic priority at EU level. The
2009 Stockholm Programme[6] calls
the Member States and the Commission to make the confiscation of criminal
assets more efficient and to strengthen the cooperation between Asset Recovery
Offices.
|
Zaplemba sredstev,
pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, je kot učinkovito orodje v boju proti
organiziranemu kriminalu in hudim kaznivim dejanjem postala strateška
prednostna naloga na ravni EU. S stockholmskih programom iz leta 2009[6] so države članice in Komisija
pozvane k izboljšanju učinkovitosti zaplembe sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim
dejanjem, in okrepitvi sodelovanja med uradi za odvzem premoženjskih koristi.
|
|
The Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions on confiscation and
asset recovery adopted in June 2010[7] call for a more
coordinated approach between Member States to achieve a more effective and
widespread confiscation of criminal assets. They call, in particular, on the
Commission to consider strengthening the legal framework in order to achieve
more effective regimes for third party confiscation and extended confiscation.
They stress the importance of all phases of the confiscation and asset recovery
process and recommend measures to preserve the value of assets during that
process.
|
Sklepi Sveta za
pravosodje in notranje zadeve o zaplembi in odvzemu premoženjskih koristi,
sprejeti junija 2010[7],
pozivajo k bolj usklajenemu pristopu med državami članicami, da bi dosegli
učinkovitejšo in široko razširjeno zaplembo sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim
dejanjem. Zlasti pozivajo Komisijo, naj preuči krepitev pravnega okvira, da bi
dosegli učinkovitejšo ureditev v zvezi z zaplembo sredstev tretji osebi in
razširjeno zaplembo. Poudarjajo pomen vseh faz postopka zaplembe in odvzema
premoženjskih koristi ter priporočajo ukrepe za ohranitev vrednosti sredstev v
tem postopku.
|
|
The Commission
Communication "An Internal Security Strategy in Action"[8]
states that the Commission will propose legislation to strengthen the EU legal
framework on confiscation, in particular to allow more third-party confiscation[9]
and extended confiscation, and to facilitate mutual recognition of
non-conviction-based[10] confiscation orders
between Member States.
|
V Sporočilu
Komisije „Izvajanje strategije notranje varnosti EU[8]“ je določeno, da bo Komisija
predlagala predpise za krepitev pravnega okvira EU o zaplembi, zlasti za
omogočanje večjega obsega zaplembe tretjim osebam[9] in razširjene zaplembe ter za
olajšanje vzajemnega priznavanja odredb o zaplembi, ki ne temeljijo na obsodbah[10], med državami članicami.
|
|
The European
Parliament adopted in October 2011 an own initiative report on organised crime
which calls the Commission to propose new legislation on confiscation as soon
as possible, in particular rules on the effective use of extended and
non-conviction based confiscation, rules allowing for the confiscation of
assets transferred to third parties and rules concerning the mitigation of the
burden of proof after the conviction of an offender for a serious offence
concerning the origin of assets held by the offender[11].
|
Evropski parlament
je oktobra 2011 na lastno pobudo sprejel poročilo o organiziranem kriminalu, ki
poziva Komisijo, naj predlaga nove predpise o zaplembi čim prej, zlasti pravila
o učinkoviti uporabi razširjene zaplembe in zaplembe, ki ne temelji na obsodbi,
pravila, ki omogočajo zaplembo sredstev, ki so prenesena na tretjo osebo, in
pravila o zmanjšanju dokaznega bremena po obsodbi storilca kaznivega dejanja za
hudo kaznivo dejanje v zvezi z izvorom sredstev, ki so v posesti storilca[11].
|
|
In its
Communication on the proceeds of crime adopted in 2008[12]
the Commission identified ten strategic priorities for future work and
highlighted shortcomings in the EU legal framework (lack of implementation,
lack of clarity of some provisions, lack of coherence between existing
provisions).
|
Komisija je v
svojem sporočilu o premoženjskih koristih, pridobljenih z organiziranim
kriminalom, sprejetem leta 2008[12],
opredelila deset strateških prednostnih nalog za prihodnje delo in opozorila na
pomanjkljivosti v pravnem okviru EU (pomanjkljivo izvajanje, nejasnost
nekaterih določb, pomanjkanje skladnosti med veljavnimi določbami).
|
|
In this
context, the Commission proposes a Directive laying down minimum rules for
Member States with respect to freezing and confiscation of criminal assets
through direct confiscation, value confiscation, extended confiscation,
non-conviction based confiscation (in limited circumstances), and third-party
confiscation. The adoption of those minimum rules will further harmonise the
Member States' freezing and confiscation regimes, and thus facilitate mutual
trust and effective cross-border cooperation.
|
V tem okviru
Komisija predlaga direktivo o minimalnih pravilih za države članice v zvezi z
zamrznitvijo in zaplembo sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, in sicer z
neposredno zaplembo, zaplembo vrednosti, razširjeno zaplembo, zaplembo, ki ne
temelji na obsodbi (v določenih okoliščinah), in zaplembo sredstev tretji
osebi. Sprejetje teh minimalnih pravil bo še bolj uskladilo pravno ureditev
držav članic na področju zamrznitve in zaplembe, ter tako olajšalo medsebojno
zaupanje in učinkovito čezmejno sodelovanje.
|
|
The Commission
will moreover continue to explore and research possible ways to strengthen the
mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, while taking full
account of fundamental rights. Over time, all confiscation and freezing orders
issued by a Member State should be effectively enforced against assets located
in another Member State. To this end, the Commission will continue to encourage
Member States to implement the existing EU mutual recognition legal
instruments.
|
Poleg tega bo
Komisija še naprej preučevala in raziskovala možnosti za krepitev vzajemnega
priznavanja odredb o zamrznitvi in odredb o zaplembi, in sicer ob popolnem
upoštevanju temeljnih pravic. S časom bi bilo treba vse odredbe o zaplembi in
odredbe o zamrznitvi, ki jih je izdala država članica, učinkovito izvrševati v
zvezi s sredstvi, ki so v drugi državi članici. V ta namen bo Komisija še
naprej spodbujala države članice, naj izvajajo veljavne pravne akte na področju
medsebojnega priznavanja.
|
|
This proposal will imply no cost for the EU
budget. It does not concern the budgetary allocation of the product of
confiscation.
|
Ta predlog ne pomeni nobenih stroškov za
proračun EU. Ne zadeva dodeljenih proračunskih sredstev v zvezi z rezultatom
zaplembe.
|
|
1.2.
Existing Community provisions in this area
|
1.2.
Veljavni predpisi Skupnosti na tem področju
|
|
The current EU legal framework on the
freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime consists of four Council
Framework Decisions (FD) and one Council Decision:
|
Veljavni pravni okvir EU na področju
zamrznitve in zaplembe premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem,
sestavljajo štirje okvirni sklepi Sveta in Sklep Sveta:
|
|
·
Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA[13],
which obliges Member States to enable confiscation, to allow value confiscation[14]
where the direct proceeds of crime cannot be seized and to ensure that requests
from other Member States are treated with the same priority as domestic
proceedings;
|
·
Okvirni sklep 2001/500/PNZ[13], ki države članice obvezuje,
da omogočijo zaplembo, dovolijo zaplembo vrednosti[14], kadar neposrednih
premoženjskih koristi, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, ni mogoče zapleniti,
ter zagotovijo, da se zaprosila iz drugih držav članic obdelajo z isto
prednostjo, kot se nameni takim ukrepom v domačih postopkih;
|
|
·
Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA[15],
which harmonises confiscation laws. Ordinary confiscation, including value
confiscation, must be available for all crimes punishable by 1 year
imprisonment. Extended confiscation[16] must be available for
certain serious offences, when "committed within the framework of a
criminal organisation";
|
·
Okvirni sklep 2005/212/PNZ[15], ki usklajuje predpise o
zaplembi. Navadna zaplemba, vključno z zaplembo vrednosti, mora biti mogoča za
vsa kazniva dejanja, ki se kaznujejo z zaporno kaznijo enega leta. Možnost
uporabe razširjene zaplembe[16]
mora obstajati za nekatera huda kazniva dejanja, kadar so storjena „v okviru
kriminalne združbe“;
|
|
·
Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA[17],
which provides for mutual recognition of freezing orders;
|
·
Okvirni sklep 2003/577/PNZ[17], ki določa vzajemno
priznavanje sklepov o zasegu;
|
|
·
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA[18],
which provides for the mutual recognition of confiscation orders; and
|
·
Okvirni sklep 2006/783/PNZ[18], ki določa vzajemno
priznavanje odredb o zaplembi; ter
|
|
·
Council Decision 2007/845/JHA[19]
on the exchange of information and cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices obliges
Member States to set up or designate national Asset Recovery Offices as
national central contact points which facilitate, through enhanced cooperation,
the fastest possible EU-wide tracing of assets derived from crime.
|
·
Sklep Sveta 2007/845/PNZ[19] o izmenjavi informacij in
sodelovanju med uradi za odvzem premoženjske koristi, ki države članice
obvezuje, da ustanovijo ali imenujejo pristojne nacionalne urade za odvzem
premoženjske koristi kot osrednje nacionalne kontaktne točke, ki z okrepljenim
sodelovanjem omogočajo najhitrejše možno sledenje premoženjski koristi,
pridobljeni s kaznivim dejanjem.
|
|
These instruments were developed essentially
to fight serious and organised crime. However, apart from the provisions on
extended confiscation, the current EU legal framework on substantive criminal
law applies to the confiscation of the proceeds from any criminal offence
punishable by deprivation of liberty for more than a year.
|
Ti pravni akti so bili razviti predvsem za boj
proti hudim kaznivim dejanjem in kaznivim dejanjem organiziranega kriminala.
Poleg določb o razširjeni zaplembi pa se veljavni pravni okvir EU na področju
kazenskega materialnega prava uporablja za zaplembo premoženjske koristi,
pridobljene s katerim koli kaznivim dejanjem, ki se kaznuje z odvzemom
prostosti za več kot eno leto.
|
|
1.3.
Consistency with other policies
|
1.3.
Usklajenost z drugimi politikami
|
|
The Commission
Work Programme 2011 includes the current proposal as a strategic initiative, as
part of a broader political initiative aimed at protecting the licit economy
from criminal infiltration. That initiative includes measures to address corruption
in the EU[20] and an EU anti-fraud
strategy[21] adopted in June 2011. By
protecting the licit economy, this proposal will contribute to growth and jobs
in Europe and help facilitate sustainable growth in line with the Europe 2020 strategy
[22].
|
Delovni program
Komisije za leto 2011 vključuje ta predlog kot strateško pobudo, in sicer kot
del širše politične pobude za zaščito zakonitih gospodarskih dejavnosti pred
vdorom kriminalitete. Ta pobuda vsebuje ukrepe, ki obravnavajo korupcijo
v EU[20],
in strategijo EU na področju boja proti goljufijam[21], sprejeto junija 2011. Ta
predlog bo z zaščito zakonitih gospodarskih dejavnosti prispeval k rasti in
novim delovnim mestom v Evropi ter spodbujal trajnostno rast v skladu s
strategijo Evropa 2020[22].
|
|
The
anti-corruption package adopted by the Commission in June 2011 established a
reinforced policy approach against corruption in a wide range of internal and
external EU policies and set up a new reporting mechanism for evaluating Member
States' efforts against corruption on a regular basis, starting with 2013. The
Communication on Fighting Corruption in the EU called upon the Member States to
take all necessary steps to ensure the effective detection, prosecution, and a
stable track-record of dissuasive penalties and recovery of criminally acquired
assets in corruption cases. It also stressed the need for a revised EU legal
framework on confiscation and asset recovery to ensure that courts in Member
States are able to effectively confiscate criminal and criminally tainted
assets and to fully recover the corresponding values, including in cases
involving corruption.
|
V
protikorupcijskem svežnju, ki ga je Komisija sprejela junija 2011, je bil
vzpostavljen okrepljen pristop politike zoper korupcijo na področju številnih
notranjih in zunanjih politik EU ter nov mehanizem rednega poročanja za
ocenjevanje prizadevanj držav članic zoper korupcijo, ki se začne izvajati
leta 2013. Države članice so bile v sporočilu o boju proti korupciji v EU
pozvane k sprejetju vseh potrebnih ukrepov za zagotavljanje učinkovitega
odkrivanja in pregona korupcije ter trajnih rezultatov na področju odvračilnih
kazni in izterjave premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem, v
korupcijskih zadevah. V sporočilu je bila tudi poudarjena potreba po
prenovljenem pravnem okviru EU o zaplembi in izterjavi sredstev, ki bi
sodiščem v državah članicah omogočil učinkovito zaplembo sredstev storilcev
kaznivih dejanj in z njimi povezanih sredstev ter izterjavo celotnih zneskov v
ustrezni vrednosti, tudi v primerih v zvezi s korupcijo.
|
|
In the same
context of protection of licit economy, the Commission launched in 2011 several
initiatives aiming to provide better safeguards for taxpayers' money at EU
level against fraud and corruption. These include a Commission proposal for
amending the legal framework of OLAF[23], the Communication on
the protection of EU financial interests by criminal law and administrative
investigations[24], and the Communication
on a Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy (CAFS). The implementation of CAFS is
carried out in close coordination with the work on the EU Anti-Corruption
Report. The latter will focus on the enforcement of anti-corruption policies in
the Member States, while CAFS focuses on measures for preventing and combating
fraud and corruption, in particular against EU funds.
|
Komisija je
leta 2011 v istem okviru zaščite zakonitih gospodarskih dejavnosti
sprožila več pobud proti goljufijam in korupciji, katerih namen je
zagotavljanje boljših zaščitnih ukrepov za denar davkoplačevalcev na
ravni EU. Te pobude vključujejo predlog Komisije za spremembo pravnega
okvira urada OLAF[23],
Sporočilo o zaščiti finančnih interesov EU s kazenskim pravom in upravnimi
preiskavami[24]
ter Sporočilo Komisije o strategiji za boj proti goljufijam. Izvajanje
strategije za boj proti goljufijam se izvaja v tesnem usklajevanju z delom na
poročilu EU o boju proti korupciji. Slednje se bo osredotočilo na izvrševanje
politik za boj proti goljufijam v državah članicah, medtem ko se strategija za
boj proti goljufijam osredotoča na ukrepe za preprečevanje goljufij in
korupcije ter boj proti njim, zlasti tistih v zvezi s proračunom EU.
|
|
This proposal
is consistent with the EU anti-money laundering legislation, notably the EU
Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive[25] and the related
initiatives that the Commission, the other EU institutions and the Member
States are undertaking in this area.
|
Ta predlog je
usklajen z zakonodajo EU za boj proti pranju denarja, predvsem s tretjo
direktivo proti pranju denarja[25]
in povezanimi pobudami, ki jih Komisija, druge institucije EU in države
članice izvajajo na tem področju.
|
|
2.
Results of the consultations with the interested
parties and the impact assessment
2.1.
Consultations with the interested parties
|
2.
Rezultati posvetovanj z zainteresiranimi stranmi in ocena učinka
2.1.
Posvetovanja z zainteresiranimi stranmi
|
|
The proposal has been prepared in
accordance with the Commission's better regulation principles. Minimum
standards for consultation of interested parties have been met in the
preparation of this proposal and the impact assessment.
|
Predlog je pripravljen v skladu z načeli
Komisije za boljšo pravno ureditev. Pri pripravi tega predloga in ocene učinka
so bili doseženi minimalni standardi za posvetovanje z zainteresiranimi
stranmi.
|
|
Wide consultations and discussions
with experts were carried out in the Camden Asset
Recovery Inter-Agency Network Plenary meeting[26] (September
2010) and in eight meetings of the EU informal Asset Recovery Offices' Platform
between 2009 and 2011.
|
Obsežna posvetovanja in razprave s
strokovnjaki so bile opravljene na plenarnem zasedanju Camdenske meddržavne
mreže uradov za odvzem premoženjske koristi[26]
(septembra 2010) ter na osmih srečanjih neformalne platforme uradov za odvzem
premoženjske koristi (med letoma 2009 in 2011).
|
|
No open
Internet consultation was carried out, as confiscation is a specialised topic
where limited expertise is available. Contacts were established with civil
society, notably with organisations promoting legality, the fight against
organised crime and the protection of the victims of crime[27].
|
Javno spletno
posvetovanje ni bilo opravljeno, saj je področje zaplembe specializirano
področje, na katerem je na voljo le omejeno strokovno znanje. Stiki so bili
navezani s civilno družbo, zlasti z organizacijami, ki spodbujajo zakonitost,
boj proti organiziranemu kriminalu in zaščito žrtev kaznivih dejanj[27].
|
|
Issues relating
to confiscation of criminal assets are also widely discussed between experts.
International practitioners' meetings and strategic seminars on confiscation
and asset recovery[28] are increasingly taking
place. Practitioners consider most of the provisions included in the proposal to
reflect best practices as set out in the recommendations issued by the Camden
Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network between 2005 and 2010. The provisions are
also in line with the recommendations on confiscation from the OECD Financial
Action Task Force (FATF)[29].
|
O vprašanjih v
zvezi z zaplembo sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, so obširno
razpravljali tudi strokovnjaki med seboj. Mednarodni sestanki in strateški
seminarji za strokovne delavce na področju zaplembe in odvzema premoženjskih
koristi[28]
so vse pogostejši. Strokovni delavci menijo, da večina določb iz predloga
odraža najboljše prakse, kot so opredeljene v priporočilih Camdenske meddržavne
mreže uradov za odvzem premoženjske koristi med letoma 2005 in 2010. Določbe so
prav tako v skladu s priporočili o zaplembi, ki jih je podala projektna skupina
OECD za finančno ukrepanje (FATF)[29].
|
|
The Member
States expressed their position on these issues in 2010 in the JHA Council
Conclusions mentioned above. Although there was broad agreement on most issues,
a few Member States expressed reservations regarding non-conviction based
confiscation. Conversely, on other issues (e.g. third party confiscation, asset
management) Member States agreed that a stronger EU response is necessary.
|
Države članice so
izrazile svoje stališče o teh vprašanjih v sklepih Sveta PNZ iz leta 2010, ki
so navedeni zgoraj. Čeprav so na splošno soglašale o večini vprašanj, pa je
nekaj držav članic izrazilo zadržke glede zaplembe, ki ne temelji na obsodbi.
Nasprotno pa so se države članice o drugih vprašanjih (npr. o zaplembi sredstev
tretji osebi, upravljanju s sredstvi) strinjale, da je potreben odločnejši
odziv EU.
|
|
Defence lawyers
expressed concerns about an increase in extended confiscation, non-conviction
based confiscation and third party confiscation powers due to fundamental
rights concerns (possible limitation of the right to property and right to a
fair trial). As explained below, those concerns are carefully addressed in the
proposal.
|
Odvetniki so
izrazili zaskrbljenost glede povečanja pristojnosti na področju razširjenih
zaplemb, zaplemb, ki ne temeljijo na obsodbi, in zaplemb sredstev tretji osebi,
in sicer zaradi pomislekov v zvezi s temeljnimi pravicami (morebitna omejitev
lastninske pravice in pravice do nepristranskega sodišča). Kot je pojasnjeno v
nadaljevanju, so ti pomisleki skrbno obravnavani v predlogu.
|
|
2.2.
Impact assessment
|
2.2.
Ocena učinka
|
|
In line with its
better regulation policy, the Commission conducted an
impact assessment of policy alternatives based on an external
study which was completed in March 2011[30].
|
V skladu s politiko boljše pravne ureditve je
Komisija izvedla oceno učinka za možnosti politike na podlagi zunanje študije,
ki je bila zaključena marca 2011[30].
|
|
The external study is based on a broad
consultation of practitioners and experts, including interviews with some
national contact points of the Camden Asset Recovery
Inter-Agency Network. As shown by their position in negotiating the Council
Conclusions mentioned above, Member States generally agree on the need for
stronger EU rules on asset recovery.
|
Zunanja študija temelji na obsežnem
posvetovanju s strokovnimi delavci in strokovnjaki, tudi na pogovorih z
nekaterimi nacionalnimi kontaktnimi točkami Camdenske meddržavne mreže uradov
za odvzem premoženjske koristi. Kot je razvidno iz njihovega položaja v
pogajanjih o zgoraj navedenih sklepih Sveta, države članice na splošno
soglašajo, da je treba okrepiti pravila EU o odvzemu premoženjske koristi.
|
|
The impact assessment also draws on the
conclusions and recommendations of another study, finalised in 2009[31].
It analyses Member States' practices in confiscation, focusing in particular on
what has proven effective at national level with a view to promoting and
exchanging best practices. The study identified several obstacles to effective
confiscation, such as conflicting legal traditions, resulting in the lack of a
common approach to confiscation measures, difficulties in securing and
maintaining assets, lack of resources and training, limited cross-agency
contacts and a lack of coherent and comparable statistics.
|
Ocena učinka upošteva tudi sklepe in
priporočila druge študije, ki je bila zaključena leta 2009[31]. Analizira prakse držav članic
na področju zaplembe in se osredotoča zlasti na to, kar se je izkazalo za
učinkovito na nacionalni ravni, z namenom spodbujanja in izmenjave najboljših
praks. Študija je opredelila več ovir za učinkovito zaplembo, kot so
nasprotujoče si pravne tradicije, ki nimajo skupnega pristopa k ukrepom
zaplembe, težave pri zavarovanju in ohranjanju sredstev, pomanjkanje virov in
usposabljanja, omejeni stiki med institucijami ter pomanjkanje skladnih in
primerljivih statističnih podatkov.
|
|
Finally, the impact assessment is based on
the implementation reports issued by the Commission on the existing EU legal
acts. The reports on Framework Decisions 2005/212/JHA[32],
2003/577/JHA[33] and 2006/783/JHA[34]
show that Member States have been slow in transposing them and that the
relevant provision have been often implemented in an incomplete or incorrect
way. Only the degree of implementation of Council Decision 2007/845/JHA in the
Member States can be considered as moderately satisfactory[35].
|
Poleg tega ocena učinka temelji na poročilih o
izvajanju, ki jih je izdala Komisija v zvezi z veljavnimi pravnimi akti EU.
Poročila o okvirnih sklepih 2005/212/PNZ[32],
2003/577/PNZ[33]
in 2006/783/PNZ[34]
kažejo, da jih države članice le počasi prenašajo v nacionalno zakonodajo in da
se pomembne določbe pogosto izvajajo pomanjkljivo ali nepravilno. Za dokaj
zadovoljivo je mogoče šteti le stopnjo izvajanja Sklepa Sveta 2007/845/PNZ v
državah članicah[35].
|
|
The impact assessment analysed several
policy options representing different degrees of EU-level intervention: a
non-legislative option, a minimal legislative option (correcting deficiencies
in the existing EU legal framework which inhibit it from functioning as
intended) and a maximal legislative option (going beyond the aims of the
existing EU legal framework). Within the latter, two maximal legislative sub-options
are analysed, one with and one without EU level action relating to mutual
recognition of freezing and confiscation orders between Member States.
|
Z oceno učinka so bile preučene različne možnosti
politike, ki predstavljajo različne stopnje posredovanja na ravni EU:
nezakonodajna možnost, minimalna zakonodajna možnost (odprava pomanjkljivosti v
veljavnem pravnem okviru EU, ki onemogočajo, da bi deloval tako, kot je
predvideno) in maksimalna zakonodajna možnost (ki gre prek ciljev veljavnega
pravnega okvira EU). V okviru slednje sta bili analizirani dve maksimalni
zakonodajni podmožnosti, ena z in ena brez ukrepanja na ravni EU, v zvezi z
vzajemnim priznavanjem odredb o zamrznitvi in odredb o zaplembi med državami
članicami.
|
|
The preferred policy option is the
maximal legislative option. This option would considerably enhance the
harmonisation of national rules on confiscation and enforcement, inter alia
by amending existing provisions on extended confiscation, and introducing new
provisions on non-conviction based confiscation and third party confiscation
and introducing more effective rules on the mutual recognition of freezing and
confiscation orders.
|
Najprimernejša možnost politike je maksimalna
zakonodajna možnost. Ta možnost bi precej povečala usklajenost nacionalnih
pravil o zaplembi in izvršbi, med drugim tudi s spremembo veljavnih določb o
razširjeni zaplembi ter z uvedbo novih določb o zaplembi, ki ne temelji na
obsodbi, o zaplembi sredstev tretji osebi in z uvedbo učinkovitejših pravil o
vzajemnem priznavanju odredb o zamrznitvi in odredb o zaplembi.
|
|
Among other fundamental rights, the impact
assessment analysed the impacts on the protection of personal data, which were
not considered as substantial.
|
Poleg vpliva na druge temeljne pravice so v
oceni učinka analizirani tudi vplivi na pravico do varstva osebnih podatkov, ki
se ne štejejo za bistvene.
|
|
The full impact assessment report is
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/crime/crime_confiscation_en.htm
|
Celotno poročilo o oceni učinka je na voljo na
naslovu: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/crime/crime_confiscation_en.htm.
|
|
2.3.
Legal basis
|
2.3.
Pravna podlaga
|
|
This proposal is based on Articles 82(2) and
83(1) of the TFEU.
|
Ta predlog temelji na členih 82(2) in 83(1)
Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU).
|
|
The conferral of powers related to
confiscation and asset recovery has changed following the entry into force of
the Lisbon Treaty. As the main legal basis for this proposal is Article 83(1)
TFEU, its scope is limited to the offences in the areas listed in that Article,
namely terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women
and children, illicit drug trafficking, money laundering, corruption,
counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime. Illicit
arms trafficking is covered where that crime is committed in the context of
organised crime.
|
Pooblastila v zvezi z zaplembo in odvzemom
premoženjske koristi so se spremenila z začetkom veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe.
Ker je glavna pravna podlaga tega predloga člen 83(1) PDEU, je njegovo področje
uporabe omejeno na kazniva dejanja s področij iz tega člena, kot so terorizem,
trgovina z ljudmi in spolna zloraba žensk in otrok, nedovoljen promet s prepovedanimi
drogami, pranje denarja, korupcija, ponarejanje plačilnih sredstev,
računalniški kriminal in organizirani kriminal. Nedovoljen promet z orožjem je
zajet, če je kaznivo dejanje storjeno v okviru organiziranega kriminala.
|
|
One of the listed areas of crime is
“organised crime”. The proposal will therefore cover other criminal activities
not specifically listed in Article 83(1) where those activities are committed
by participating in a criminal organisation as defined in Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA
on the fight against organised crime[36].
|
Eno od navedenih področij kriminala je
„organizirani kriminal”. Predlog bo zato zajemal druge kaznive dejavnosti, ki
niso izrecno navedene v členu 83(1), če se te dejavnosti izvajajo s
sodelovanjem v hudodelski združbi, kot je določeno v Okvirnem sklepu
2008/841/PNZ o boju proti organiziranemu kriminalu[36].
|
|
The limitation of the scope of this
proposal to the areas of crime listed in Article 83(1), including crimes
committed by participating in a criminal organisation, implies that existing
provisions of EU rules on confiscation should remain in place in order to maintain
a degree of harmonisation with respect to criminal activities which fall outside
the scope of this Directive. The proposal accordingly maintains in force
Articles 2, 4 and 5 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA.
|
Omejitev področja uporabe tega predloga na
področja kriminala, navedena v členu 83(1), vključno s kaznivimi dejanji,
storjenimi s sodelovanjem v hudodelski združbi, pomeni, da bi bilo treba
veljavne določbe pravil EU o zaplembi izvajati še naprej, da bi ohranili
stopnjo usklajenosti ob upoštevanju kaznivih dejavnosti, ki ne spadajo na
področje uporabe te direktive. V skladu s tem predlog ohranja v veljavi
člene 2, 4 in 5 Okvirnega sklepa 2005/212/PNZ.
|
|
2.4.
Subsidiarity, proportionality and respect for
fundamental rights.
|
2.4.
Subsidiarnost, sorazmernost in spoštovanje
temeljnih pravic
|
|
Under Article 5(3) TEU, the Union shall
only act if the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member
States. Article 67 TFEU foresees that the Union shall provide citizens with a
high level of security by preventing and combating crime. Confiscating criminal
assets is increasingly recognised as an important tool to combat organised
crime, which is very often transnational in nature and thus needs to be tackled
on a common basis. The EU is therefore better placed
than individual Member States to regulate freezing and confiscation of criminal
assets.
|
Na podlagi člena 5(3) Pogodbe o Evropski uniji
(PEU) Unija ukrepa le, če cilja predlaganega ukrepa ne morejo zadovoljivo
doseči same države članice. Člen 67 PDEU določa, da Unija državljanom
zagotavlja visoko stopnjo varstva s preprečevanjem kriminala in bojem proti
njemu. Zaplemba sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, vse bolj velja za
pomembno orodje boja proti organiziranemu kriminalu, ki je pogosto
nadnacionalnega značaja in ga je treba obravnavati na skupni podlagi. EU je
zato v boljšem položaju od posamezne države članice, da uredi zamrznitev in
zaplembo sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem.
|
|
The assets of organised criminal groups are
increasingly hidden and invested outside their home country (often in several
countries)[37]. This double
cross-border dimension (of organised crime activities and their investments)
further justifies EU action to target the assets of organised criminal groups.
|
Sredstva organiziranih hudodelskih združb so
vedno pogosteje skrita in naložena zunaj njihove matične države (pogosto v več
državah)[37].
Ta dvojna čezmejna razsežnost (za dejavnosti organiziranega kriminala in
njihove naložbe) še bolj upravičuje ukrepanje EU, ki se osredotoča na sredstva
organiziranih hudodelskih združb.
|
|
All provisions fully respect the principle
of proportionality, and fundamental rights, including the right to property,
the presumption of innocence and
the right of defence, the right to a fair trial, the right
to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time, the right to an effective judicial
remedy before a court and the right to be informed on how to exercise it, the right to respect for private and family
life, the right to protection of personal data, the right not to be tried or
punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence and the
principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences.
|
Vse določbe popolnoma upoštevajo načelo
sorazmernosti in temeljne pravice, vključno z lastninsko pravico, domnevo
nedolžnosti in pravico do obrambe, pravico do nepristranskega sodišča, pravico
osebe, da o njeni zadevi pravično, javno in v razumnem roku odloča sodišče,
pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva pred sodiščem in pravico do pouka o
načinu njenega uveljavljanja, pravico do spoštovanja zasebnega in družinskega
življenja, pravico do varstva osebnih podatkov, pravico osebe, da se za isto
kaznivo dejanje kazensko ne preganja ali kaznuje dvakrat, ter načelom
zakonitosti in sorazmernosti kaznivih dejanj in kazni.
|
|
In particular, the introduction of
harmonised non-conviction based confiscation provisions is foreseen only for
very limited circumstances, i.e. where the defendant cannot be prosecuted due
to death, illness or flight. Extended confiscation is allowed only to the
extent that a court finds, based on specific facts,
that a person convicted of an offence is in possession of assets which are
substantially more probable to be derived from other similar criminal
activities than from other activities. The convicted person is given an effective possibility of rebutting such specific facts. Moreover,
the extended powers of confiscation cannot be applied to the alleged proceeds
of criminal activities for which the affected person has been acquitted in a
previous trial, or in other cases where the ne bis in idem principle
applies. Third party confiscation is allowed only under specific conditions,
i.e. where the acquiring third party paid an amount lower than market value and
should have suspected that the assets are proceeds of crime, and after an
assesment showing that confiscation of assets directly from the person who
transferred them is unlikely to succeed. Finally, specific safeguards and
judicial remedies are included in the proposal in order to ensure an equal
level of protection and respect for fundamental rights. These include the right
to be informed about the proceedings, the right to be represented by a lawyer,
the obligation to communicate any decision affecting property as soon as
possible and to have an effective possibility to appeal against such decision.
These specific remedies are foreseen not only for accused or suspected person
but also for other persons in the context of third party confiscation.
|
Zlasti je uvedba usklajenih določb o zaplembi,
ki ne temelji na obsodbi, predvidena le v zelo omejenih okoliščinah, tj. če
obdolženca ni mogoče sodno preganjati zaradi smrti, bolezni ali bega. Razširjena
zaplemba je dovoljena le, če sodišče na podlagi določenih dejstev ugotovi, da
oseba, obsojena za kaznivo dejanje, poseduje sredstva, za katera je bistveno
bolj verjetno, da izhajajo iz drugih podobnih kaznivih dejavnosti, kot pa iz
drugih dejavnosti. Obsojena oseba ima učinkovito možnost izpodbijanja takih
specifičnih dejstev. Poleg tega razširjenih pristojnosti za zaplembo ni mogoče
uporabiti za domnevno premoženjsko korist, pridobljeno s kaznivim dejanjem,
katerega je bil obdolženec oproščen v predhodnem postopku ali v drugih
postopkih, v katerih velja načelo ne bis in idem. Zaplemba sredstev
tretji osebi je dovoljena samo pod določenimi pogoji, tj. kadar je tretja oseba
kot kupec plačala znesek, nižji od tržne vrednosti, in bi morala domnevati, da so
sredstva premoženjska korist, pridobljena s kaznivim dejanjem, ter na podlagi
ocene, iz katere izhaja, da zaplemba sredstev neposredno osebi, ki jih je
prenesla, verjetno ne bo uspešna. Poleg tega so del predloga posebni zaščitni
ukrepi in pravna sredstva, da se zagotovi enaka raven varstva in spoštovanja
temeljnih pravic. Vključujejo pravico do obveščenosti o postopku, pravico do
zastopanja po odvetniku, obveznost sporočiti vsako odločitev, ki vpliva na
premoženje, takoj, ko je to mogoče, ter pravico do učinkovite možnosti pritožbe
zoper takšno odločitev. Ti posebni ukrepi in pravna sredstva so predvideni ne
le za osumljene ali obtožene osebe, ampak tudi za druge osebe v okviru zaplembe
sredstev tretji osebi.
|
|
Although it has avoided ruling on the
principled question of the compatibility of non-conviction based and extended
confiscation regimes with the European Convention on Human Rights, the European
Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) has rendered several decisions, upholding their application
in particular cases. National non-conviction based procedures involving reversals
of the burden of proof on the issue of the legitimacy of assets (which are more
far-reaching than the provisions in this Directive) have been upheld by the ECtHR
in specific cases, so long as they were applied fairly in the particular case
and with adequate safeguards in place for the affected person. For example an
application of the Italian legislation was held to be a proportionate
restriction on fundamental rights in as much as it constitutes a “necessary
weapon” in the fight against the Mafia[38]. In another
case an application of the United Kingdom civil confiscation regime was found
not to violate the ECHR[39].
|
Čeprav se je izognilo odločanju o načelnem vprašanju
skladnosti režimov zaplembe, ki ne temelji na obsodbi, in razširjene zaplembe z
Evropsko konvencijo o človekovih pravicah, pa je Evropsko sodišče za človekove
pravice (ESČP) izdalo več sodb, v katerih je dosledno soglašalo z uporabo teh
režimov v posebnih primerih. Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice je v
posebnih primerih soglašalo z nacionalnimi postopki, ki ne temeljijo na
obsodbi, v zvezi z obrnjenim dokaznim bremenom glede vprašanja zakonitosti
sredstev (ki imajo precej večje posledice od določb v tej direktivi), če so se
uporabljali pošteno v posameznem primeru in če so obstajali ustrezni zaščitni
ukrepi za prizadeto osebo. Na primer, Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice je
štelo uporabo italijanske zakonodaje za sorazmerno omejitev temeljnih pravic v
obsegu, v katerem pomeni „potrebno orožje“ v boju proti mafiji[38]. V drugi zadevi pa je glede
režima civilne zaplembe v Združenem kraljestvu ugotovilo, da ne krši Evropske
konvencije o človekovih pravicah[39].
|
|
2.5.
Choice of instruments
|
2.5.
Izbira pravnih aktov
|
|
In order to amend the EU provisions on
harmonisation, a Directive replacing Joint Action 98/699/JHA and, in part, Framework
Decisions 2001/500/JHA and 2005/212/JHA is the only viable instrument.
|
Za spremembo določb EU o uskladitvi je
direktiva, ki nadomesti Skupni ukrep 98/699/PNZ ter delno okvirna sklepa
2001/500/PNZ in 2005/212/PNZ, edini učinkoviti pravni akt.
|
|
2.6.
Specific provisions
|
2.6.
Posebne določbe
|
|
- Objective (Article 1)
|
– Cilj (Člen 1)
|
|
This provision clarifies that the Directive
provides only minimum rules (national legislation can be more far-reaching) and
that it concerns confiscation of proceeds and instrumentalities in criminal
matters.
|
Ta določba pojasnjuje, da direktiva določa le
minimalna pravila (z nacionalno zakonodajo se lahko določijo bolj daljnosežna
pravila) ter da ureja zaplembo premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim
dejanjem, in pripomočkov za kazniva dejanja v kazenskih zadevah.
|
|
- Definitions (Article 2)
|
– Opredelitev pojmov (člen 2)
|
|
Most definitions are taken from previous EU
Framework Decisions or from international conventions. The definition of
“proceeds” has been extended as compared to the definition set out in Framework
Decision 2005/212/JHA in order to include the
possibility of confiscating all valuable benefits resulting from the proceeds
of crime, including indirect proceeds.
|
Večina opredelitev pojmov izhaja iz predhodno
sprejetih okvirnih sklepov EU ali iz mednarodnih konvencij. Opredelitev pojma
„premoženjska korist“ je bila razširjena v primerjavi z opredelitvijo iz
Okvirnega sklepa 2005/212/PNZ, da se vključi možnost zaplembe vseh koristi z
materialno vrednostjo, ki izvirajo iz premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s
kaznivim dejanjem, vključno z neposredno premoženjsko koristjo, pridobljeno s
kaznivim dejanjem.
|
|
The definition of "criminal offence"
cross-refers to precise definitions in the areas of crime listed in Article
83(1) TFEU as set out in existing EU legislation.
|
Opredelitev pojma „kaznivo dejanje“ se
sklicuje na natančne opredelitev pojmov s področij kriminala iz člena 83(1)
PDEU, kot je določeno v veljavni zakonodaji EU.
|
|
- Confiscation (Article 3)
|
– Zaplemba (Člen 3)
|
|
This provision incorporates (part of)
Article 2 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA and (part of) Article 3 of Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA. It requires
Member States to enable the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of
crime following a final conviction and to enable the confiscation of property
of equivalent value to the proceeds of crime.
|
Ta določba vključuje (del) člena 2 Okvirnega
sklepa 2005/212/PNZ in (del) člena 3 Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2001/500/PNZ.
Določa obveznost držav članic, da na podlagi pravnomočne obsodbe omogočijo
zaplembo pripomočkov za kazniva dejanja in premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s
kaznivim dejanjem, in da omogočijo zaplembo premoženja v vrednosti premoženjske
koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem.
|
|
- Extended powers of confiscation
(Article 4)
|
– Razširjene pristojnosti za
zaplembo(Člen 4)
|
|
Extended confiscation signifies the ability
to confiscate assets which go beyond the direct proceeds of a crime. A criminal
conviction may be followed by the (extended) confiscation not only of assets
associated with the specific crime, but of additional assets which the court
determines are the proceeds of other similar crimes.
|
Razširjena zaplemba pomeni zmožnost zaplembe
sredstev, ki presegajo neposredno premoženjsko korist, pridobljeno s kaznivim
dejanjem. Kazenski obsodbi lahko sledi (razširjena) zaplemba ne le sredstev,
povezanih z določenim kaznivim dejanjem, ampak tudi drugih sredstev, za katera
sodišče ugotovi, da so premoženjska korist, pridobljena s podobnimi kaznivimi
dejanji.
|
|
Extended confiscation powers are already
provided for in the EU legislation. Framework Decision
2005/212/JHA obliges Member States to allow the confiscation of assets belonging
directly or indirectly to persons convicted of certain serious crimes (related
to organised crime and terrorism activities). However, this Framework Decision
establishes alternative minimum set of rules for extended confiscation, leaving
Member States free to apply one, two or all three options. The Commission
implementation report showed that these provisions are unclear and led to
piecemeal transposition. Moreover, the alternative options for extended
confiscation have restricted the scope for mutual recognition of confiscation
orders. The authorities in one Member State will execute confiscation orders
issued by another Member State only if these are based on the same alternative options
applied in that Member State. As a result, the mutual
recognition of orders based on extended confiscation is problematic.
|
Pooblastila za razširjeno zaplembo so že
določena v zakonodaji EU. Okvirni sklep 2005/212/PNZ državam članicam nalaga
obveznost, da dovolijo zaplembo sredstev, ki so neposredno ali posredno v lasti
osebe, obsojene za določena huda kazniva dejanja (v zvezi z organiziranim
kriminalom in dejavnostmi terorizma). Vendar pa ta okvirni sklep določa
alternativni minimalni niz pravil za razširjeno zaplembo, ki državam članicam
dopušča uporabo ene, dveh ali vseh treh možnosti. Iz poročila Komisije o
izvajanju izhaja, da so te določbe nejasne in so bile vzrok za postopni prenos
v nacionalno zakonodajo. Poleg tega alternativne možnosti za razširjeno
zaplembo omejujejo obseg vzajemnega priznavanja odredb o zaplembi. Organi v eni
državi članici bodo izvršili odredbe o zaplembi, ki jih je izdala druga država
članica le, če bodo temeljile na istih alternativnih možnostih, ki se
uporabljajo v tej državi članici. Zato je vzajemno priznavanje odredb o
zaplembi, ki temelji na razširjeni zaplembi, težavno.
|
|
This proposal introduces extended
confiscation for the crimes listed in Article 83(1) TFEU as set out in existing
Union legislation. It also streamlines the existing regime of alternative options for extended confiscation, by
providing for a single minimum standard. Extended confiscation can take place where a court finds, based on
specific facts, that a person convicted of an offence covered by this Directive
is in possession of assets which are substantially more probable to be derived
from other criminal activities of similar nature or gravity than from any other
activities. Extended confiscation is excluded where the
similar criminal activities could not be the subject of criminal proceedings
due to prescription under national criminal law. The
proposal also excludes from confiscation the proceeds
of alleged criminal activities for which the affected person has been finally
acquitted in a previous trial (thereby upholding the
presumption of innocence protected under Article 48 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights) or other situations where where the
ne bis in idem principle applies.
|
S tem predlogom se uvaja razširjena zaplemba
za kazniva dejanja, navedena v členu 83(1) PDEU. Poleg tega se
poenostavlja veljavna ureditev alternativnih možnosti za razširjeno zaplembo,
in sicer z določitvijo enotnega minimalnega standarda. Razširjena zaplemba se
lahko opravi le, če sodišče na podlagi določenih dejstev ugotovi, da oseba,
obsojena za kaznivo dejanje iz te direktive, poseduje sredstva, za katera je
bistveno bolj verjetno, da izhajajo iz drugih kaznivih dejavnosti podobne
narave ali stopnje resnosti, kot pa iz katerih koli drugih dejavnosti.
Razširjena zaplemba ni mogoča, če podobne kaznive dejavnosti ne bi mogle biti
predmet kazenskega postopka zaradi zastaranja po nacionalnem kazenskem pravu.
Predlog izključuje tudi zaplembo premoženjske koristi, pridobljene z domnevnim
kaznivim dejanjem, katerega je bil obdolženec pravnomočno oproščen v predhodnem
postopku (tako zagotavlja domnevo nedolžnosti, varovano na podlagi
člena 48 Listine o temeljnih pravicah) ali v drugih postopkih, v katerih
velja načelo ne bis in idem.
|
|
- Non-conviction based confiscation
(Article 5)
|
– Zaplemba, ki ne temelji na obsodbi
(Člen 5)
|
|
This provision introduces provisions on
non-conviction based confiscation in limited circumstances, with a view to
addressing cases where criminal prosecution cannot be exercised. It accordingly concerns confiscation
in relation to a criminal offence, but it allows
Member States to choose whether confiscation should be imposed by criminal
and/or civil/administrative courts. Non-conviction based procedures allow to freeze and confiscate an
asset without a prior conviction of its owner in a criminal court.
|
Ta člen uvaja določbe o zaplembi, ki ne
temelji na obsodbi, v omejenih okoliščinah, in sicer za obravnavanje zadev, v
katerih kazenskega pregona ni mogoče izvajati. Zato zadeva zaplembo v zvezi s
kaznivim dejanjem, vendar državam članicam omogoča, da se odločijo, ali bi
moralo zaplembo naložiti kazensko in/ali civilno/upravno sodišče. Postopki, ki ne temeljijo na obsodbah, omogočajo
zamrznitev in zaplembo sredstev brez predhodne obsodbe njihovega lastnika v
kazenskem postopku.
|
|
In order to meet the requirement of proportionality,
the proposal would not introduce non-conviction based
confiscation in all cases, but makes it possible only in circumstances where a
criminal conviction cannot be obtained because the suspect has died, is
permanently ill or when his flight or illness prevents
effective prosecution within a reasonable time and poses the risk that it could
be barred by statutory limitations.
|
Za izpolnitev zahteve po sorazmernosti predlog
v vseh primerih ne bi uvedel zaplembe, ki ne temelji na obsodbi, ampak bi jo
omogočil le v okoliščinah, kadar obsodba za kaznivo dejanje ni mogoča zaradi
smrti ali hude bolezni osumljenca ali kadar njegov beg ali bolezen preprečuje
učinkovit kazenski pregon v razumnem roku in pomeni tveganje zastaranja.
|
|
This provision mirrors the provisions of
the United Nations Convention against Corruption. In order to facilitate
international cooperation in confiscation, the Convention encourages the States
parties to consider taking the necessary measures to allow confiscation of the
proceeds of corruption without a criminal conviction in cases in which the
offender cannot be prosecuted by reason of death, flight or absence or in other
appropriate cases (Art. 54, paragraph 1, letter c). It also draws on the work
of the OECD Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which encourages its member
countries to consider adopting measures allowing the proceeds of crime or
instrumentalities to be confiscated without requiring a criminal conviction, or
requiring an offender to demonstrate the lawful origin of the property alleged
to be liable to confiscation (Recommendation no. 3). This provision further draws
on the views expressed by the G8 Lyon-Roma Group in a report emphasizing that,
while in principle conviction based confiscation should be pursued, there are
instances where criminal prosecution is not possible due to the defendant being
dead or having fled, to a lack of sufficient evidence necessary to start a
criminal prosecution, or to other technical reasons[40].
The introduction of provisions on confiscation without a criminal
conviction has been supported also by practitioners gathered in the Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network and
the Asset Recovery Offices' Platform.
|
Ta člen odraža določbe Konvencije Združenih
narodov proti korupciji. Za lažje mednarodno sodelovanje na področju zaplembe
konvencija spodbuja države pogodbenice, da preučijo sprejetje potrebnih
ukrepov, ki bi omogočili zaplembo premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s korupcijo,
brez obsodbe v primerih, kadar storilca ni mogoče kazensko preganjati zaradi
smrti, bega ali odsotnosti ali v drugih ustreznih primerih (člen 54, odstavek
1, točka c). Prav tako upošteva delo projektne skupine OECD za finančno
ukrepanje (FATF), ki spodbuja države članice, da razmislijo o sprejetju
ukrepov, ki bi omogočali zaplembo premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim
dejanjem, ali pripomočkov za kazniva dejanja brez obsodbe za kaznivo dejanje,
ali na podlagi katerih bi moral storilec kaznivega dejanja izkazati zakonit
izvor premoženja, ki naj bi bilo zaplenjeno (Priporočilo št. 3). Ta člen
nadalje upošteva stališča skupine Lyon-Rim G8, izražena v poročilu s poudarkom,
da je sicer načeloma treba izvajati zaplembo na podlagi obsodbe, vendar pa obstajajo
primeri, ko kazenski pregon ni mogoč zaradi smrti ali bega obdolženca, zaradi
pomanjkanja zadostnih potrebnih dokazov za začetek kazenskega pregona ali
zaradi drugih tehničnih razlogov[40].
Uvedbo določb o zaplembi brez kazenske obsodbe so podprli tudi strokovni
delavci, zbrani v Camdenski meddržavni mreži uradov za odvzem premoženjske
koristi in neformalni platformi uradov za odvzem premoženjske koristi.
|
|
- Third party confiscation (Article 6)
|
– Zaplemba sredstev tretji osebi (Člen 6)
|
|
Criminals often transfer their assets to
knowing third parties as soon as they come under investigation, in order to
avoid confiscation. Third party confiscation involves the confiscation of
assets that have been transferred by an investigated or convicted person to
third parties. The Member States' national provisions on third party
confiscation are diverging. This hampers the mutual recognition of freezing and
confiscation orders on assets transferred to a third party.
|
Storilci kaznivih dejanj v izogib zaplembi
pogosto prenesejo svoja sredstva na s tem seznanjene tretje osebe, kakor hitro
je zoper njih začeta preiskava. Zaplemba tretjim osebam pomeni zaplembo
sredstev, ki jih obdolženec ali obsojenec prenese na tretje osebe. Nacionalne
določbe držav članic o zaplembi sredstev tretji osebi se razlikujejo. To ovira
vzajemno priznavanje odredb o zamrznitvi in odredb o zaplembi v zvezi s
sredstvi, ki so bila prenesena na tretjo osebo.
|
|
In order to meet the requirements of proportionality
and protect the position of a third party acquiring property in good faith, the proposal does not introduce minimum harmonisation provisions on third party confiscation in all cases. This provision
requires third party confiscation to be available for the
proceeds of crime or other property of the defendant received for a price lower
than market value and that a reasonable person in the position of the third
party would suspect to be derived from crime or to be transferred in order to
circumvent the application of confiscation measures. It clarifies that the
reasonable-person-test must be based on concrete facts and circumstances to prevent
arbitrary decisions. Moreover, third party
confiscation should be possible only following an assessment, based on specific
facts, that the confiscation of property of the convicted, suspected or accused
person is unlikely to succeed, or in situations where unique objects must be
restored to their rightful owner.
|
Za izpolnitev zahtev sorazmernosti in varstvo
položaja tretje osebe, ki pridobi premoženje v dobri veri, predlog v vseh
primerih ne določa minimalne uskladitve v zvezi z zaplembo sredstev tretji
osebi. Ta člen določa možnost zaplembe premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s
kaznivim dejanjem, ali drugega premoženja obdolženca tretji osebi, kadar ju je ta
prejela za ceno, ki je nižja od tržne vrednosti, in kadar bi razumna oseba na
njenem mestu domnevala, da izhajata iz kaznivega dejanja ali da sta prenesena v
izogib ukrepom zaplembe. Pojasnjuje, da mora preskus razumne osebe temeljiti na
konkretnih dejstvih in okoliščinah, kar preprečuje samovoljne odločitve. Poleg
tega bi morala biti zaplemba sredstev tretji osebi mogoča le na podlagi ocene,
ki temelji na določenih dejstvih, da zaplemba premoženja obsojene, osumljene
ali obtožene osebe verjetno ne bo uspela, ali v primerih, ko je treba posebne
predmete vrniti njihovemu zakonitemu lastniku.
|
|
- Freezing (Article 7)
|
– Zamrznitev (člen 7)
|
|
The first paragraph of this provision
requires Member States to enable the freezing of property or instrumentalities in
danger of being dissipated, hidden or transferred out of the jurisdiction in
view of possible later confiscation. It clarifies that such measures should be
ordered by a court.
|
Prvi odstavek tega člena od držav članic
zahteva, naj omogočijo uporabo ukrepa zamrznitve premoženja oziroma pripomočkov
za kazniva dejanja, za katere obstaja nevarnost, da bodo zapravljeni, skriti
ali preneseni izven območja zadevne sodne pristojnosti, da se omogoči morebitna
poznejša zaplemba. Pojasnjuje, da bi moralo take ukrepe odrediti sodišče.
|
|
The introduction of the possibility to use
freezing powers in urgent cases in order to prevent asset dissipation in
situations where waiting for an order issued by a court would jeopardize the possibilities
of freezing is a longstanding priority concern of prosecutors and law
enforcement agencies. The second paragraph of this Article requires Member States to have in place measures to ensure that assets in
danger of being dissipated, hidden or transferred out of their jurisdiction can
be frozen immediately by the competent authorities, prior to seeking a court
order or pending its request.
|
Uvedba možnosti uporabe pristojnosti za
zamrznitev v nujnih primerih, da bi preprečili zapravljanje sredstev, ko bi
čakanje na izdajo sodne odredbe o zamrznitvi ogrožalo možnosti zamrznitve, je
dolgoletna prednostna skrb tožilcev in organov pregona. Drugi odstavek tega
člena od držav članic zahteva, da sprejmejo ukrepe, s katerimi zagotovijo, da
sredstva v nevarnosti, da bodo zapravljena, skrita ali prenesena izven njihove
pristojnosti, nemudoma zamrznejo pristojni organi, in sicer preden zaprosijo za
sodno odredbo ali preden je izdana.
|
|
- Safeguards (Article 8)
|
– Zaščitni ukrepi (člen 8)
|
|
According to the jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, fundamental rights such as the right to property are not
absolute. They can legitimately be subject to restrictions provided these
restrictions are provided for by law and - subject to the principle of
proportionality - are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general
interest or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, as in the
prevention of organised crime.
|
V skladu s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča za
človekove pravice in Listino Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah temeljne
pravice, kot je lastninska pravica, niso absolutne. Upravičeno so lahko predmet
omejitev, če so te omejitve predpisane ter če so – ob upoštevanju načela
sorazmernosti – potrebne in če dejansko izpolnjujejo cilje v splošnem interesu
ali če so potrebne zaradi varstva pravic in svoboščin drugih, na primer zaradi
preprečevanja organiziranega kriminala.
|
|
Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights guarantees the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair
trial. Inasmuch as freezing or confiscation orders interfere with the right to
property or other fundamental rights, they must be capable of challenge by
affected parties under the conditions set by this Article.
|
Člen 47 Listine EU o temeljnih pravicah
zagotavlja pravico do učinkovitega pravnega varstva in pravico do
nepristranskega sodišča. Ker odredbe o zamrznitvi ali odredbe o zaplembi
posegajo v lastninsko pravico ali druge temeljne pravice, morajo imeti
prizadete osebe možnost izpodbijanja teh odredb v skladu s pogoji iz tega člena.
|
|
The existing EU legislation (e.g. Article 4
of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA) provides that Member States should ensure
that adequate legal remedies for the affected persons exist in national
legislation.
|
Veljavna zakonodaja EU (npr. člen 4 Okvirnega
sklepa 2005/212/PNZ) določa obveznost držav članic, da prizadetim osebam z
nacionalno zakonodajo zagotovijo ustrezna pravna sredstva.
|
|
With a view to fully comply with the
Charter of Fundamental Rights, this Article introduces minimum safeguards at EU
level. These aim at guaranteeing the respect of the presumption of innocence,
the right to a fair trial (including the ne bis in idem principle), the
existence of effective judicial remedies before a court and the right to be
informed on how to exercise such remedies.
|
Ta člen z namenom popolne usklajenosti z
Listino o temeljnih pravicah uvaja minimalne zaščitne ukrepe na ravni EU.
Njihov cilj je zagotavljanje varstva domneve nedolžnosti, pravice do
nepristranskega sodišča (vključno z načelom ne bis in idem), obstoja
učinkovitih pravnih sredstev pred sodiščem in pravice do pouka o načinu
uveljavljanja takšnih pravnih sredstev.
|
|
- Determination of the extent of the
confiscation and effective execution (Article 9)
|
– Določitev obsega zaplembe in učinkovita
izvršba (Člen 9)
|
|
Persons suspected to belong to criminal organisations
have proven to be successful in hiding their assets, often with the benefit of
advice from skilled professionals. The investigations on assets in view of possible later confiscation
are generally lengthy and need to be carried out within the timeframe of the
corresponding criminal procedures.
|
Osebe, osumljene pripadnosti hudodelskim
združbam, so se izkazale za uspešne pri skrivanju svojih sredstev, pogosto s
pomočjo nasveta dobro usposobljenih strokovnjakov. Preiskave o sredstvih zaradi
morebitne poznejše zaplembe so na splošno dolgotrajne in jih je treba izvesti v
časovnem okviru ustreznih kazenskih postopkov.
|
|
In case a confiscation order was issued, no
property or insufficient property was discovered and the confiscation order
could not be executed, this Article requires Member States to allow financial
investigations on the person's assets to be pursued to the extent necessary to
fully execute such order. This provision addresses the problem of the
foreclosure of confiscation activities at the end of the criminal procedure and
allows unexecuted or partially executed confiscation orders to apply against
previously hidden assets which have "resurfaced" in the meantime,
also at a date when criminal proceedings are finalised.
|
Če je bila izdana odredba o zaplembi, pa
premoženje ni bilo najdeno ali je bilo najdeno nezadostno premoženje in odredbe
o zaplembi ni bilo mogoče izvršiti, ta člen od držav članic zahteva, da
omogočijo finančne preiskave o sredstvih osebe, ki se izvajajo v obsegu, ki je
potreben za izvršitev takšne odredbe v celoti. Ta določba obravnava težavo
preprečevanja dejavnosti zaplembe na koncu kazenskega postopka in omogoča
uporabo neizvršenih ali delno izvršenih odredb o zaplembi v zvezi s predhodno
skritimi sredstvi, ki so se medtem „pojavila“, in sicer tudi po koncu
kazenskega postopka.
|
|
- Management of frozen property (Article
10)
|
– Upravljanje zamrznjenega premoženja
(Člen 10)
|
|
This provision intends to facilitate the
management of property frozen in view of possible later confiscation. It
requires Member States to introduce measures aimed at ensuring an adequate
management of such property, notably by granting powers to realise frozen
property, at least where it is liable to decline in value or become uneconomical
to maintain.
|
Namen te določbe je lajšanje upravljanja
premoženja, zamrznjenega zaradi morebitne poznejše zaplembe. Državam članicam
nalaga, naj uvedejo ukrepe za zagotovitev ustreznega upravljanja takšnega
premoženja, zlasti s podelitvijo pooblastil za odtujitev zamrznjenega
premoženja, vsaj kadar je verjetno, da se bo znižala njegova vrednost ali da ga
bo negospodarno vzdrževati.
|
|
- Effectiveness and reporting
obligations (Article 11)
|
– Učinkovitost in obveznosti poročanja
(Člen 11)
|
|
This provision introduces reporting
obligations for Member States, which would help generate statistics to be used
for evaluation purposes.
|
Ta določba uvaja obveznosti poročanja držav
članic, kar bo v pomoč pri pripravi statističnih podatkov, ki se bodo uporabili
za namene vrednotenja.
|
|
2012/0036 (COD)
|
2012/0036 (COD)
|
|
Proposal for a
|
Predlog
|
|
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL
|
DIREKTIVA EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA IN SVETA
|
|
on the freezing and confiscation of
proceeds of crime in the European Union
|
o zamrznitvi in zaplembi premoženjske
koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem, v Evropski uniji
|
|
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
|
EVROPSKI PARLAMENT IN SVET EVROPSKE
UNIJE STA –
|
|
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union, and in particular Article 82(2) and Article 83(1) thereof,
|
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske
unije ter zlasti členov 82(2) in 83(1) Pogodbe,
|
|
Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission,
|
ob upoštevanju predloga Evropske komisije,
|
|
After transmission of the draft legislative
act to the national Parliaments,
|
po posredovanju osnutka zakonodajnega akta
nacionalnim parlamentom,
|
|
Having regard to the opinion of the
European Economic and Social Committee[41],
|
ob upoštevanju mnenja Evropskega
ekonomsko-socialnega odbora[41],
|
|
Having regard to the opinion of the
Committee of the Regions[42],
|
ob upoštevanju mnenja Odbora regij[42],
|
|
Acting in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure,
|
v skladu z rednim zakonodajnim postopkom,
|
|
Whereas:
|
ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
|
|
(1)
The main motive for cross-border organised crime
is financial gain. In order to be effective, law enforcement and judicial
authorities should be given the means to trace, freeze, manage and confiscate
the proceeds of crime.
|
(1)
Glavni motiv čezmejnega organiziranega kriminala je
finančna korist. Organi pregona in sodni organi bi morali, da bi bili
učinkoviti, imeti sredstva za sledenje, zamrznitev, upravljanje in zaplembo
premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem.
|
|
(2)
Organised criminal groups operate without
borders and increasingly acquire assets in other Member States and in third
countries. There is an increasing need for effective international law
enforcement cooperation on asset recovery and mutual legal assistance.
|
(2)
Delovanja organiziranih hudodelskih združb meje ne
omejujejo in vedno pogosteje pridobijo sredstva v drugih državah članicah in v
tretjih državah. Vedno bolj je potrebno učinkovito mednarodno sodelovanje na
področju kazenskega pregona pri izterjavi premoženja in medsebojni pravni
pomoči.
|
|
(3)
Although existing statistics are limited, the
amounts recovered from criminal assets in the Union seem insufficient compared
to the estimated proceeds of crime. Studies have shown that, although regulated
by EU legislation and national laws, confiscation procedures remain
underutilised.
|
(3)
Čeprav so obstoječi statistični podatki omejeni, se
zneski, izterjani iz sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, v Uniji, zdijo
nezadostni v primerjavi z ocenjeno premoženjsko koristjo, pridobljeno s kaznivim
dejanjem. Iz študij izhaja, da se postopki izterjave kljub ureditvi z
zakonodajo EU in nacionalno zakonodajo še vedno premalo uporabljajo.
|
|
(4)
The Stockholm Programme[43]
and the Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions on confiscation and asset
recovery adopted in June 2010 emphasise the importance of a more effective
identification, confiscation and re-use of criminal assets.
|
(4)
V stockholmskem programu[43] in sklepih Sveta za pravosodje
in notranje zadeve o zaplembi in izterjavi premoženja, sprejetih junija 2010,
je poudarjen pomen učinkovitejše opredelitve, zaplembe in ponovne uporabe
sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem.
|
|
(5)
The current Union legal framework on freezing,
seizure and confiscation of assets consists of Council Framework Decision
2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing,
freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of
crime[44]; Council Framework
Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of
orders freezing property or evidence[45]; Council Framework
Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on confiscation of crime-related
proceeds, instrumentalities and property[46]; Council
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the
principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders[47].
|
(5)
Veljavni pravni okvir Unije o zamrznitvi, zasegu in
zaplembi premoženja sestavljajo Okvirni sklep Sveta 2001/500/PNZ z dne
26. junija 2001 o pranju denarja, identifikaciji, sledenju,
zamrznitvi, zasegu in zaplembi pripomočkov za kazniva dejanja in premoženjske
koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem[44];
Okvirni sklep sveta 2003/577/PNZ z dne 22. julija 2003 o izvrševanju sklepov o
zasegu premoženja ali dokazov v Evropski uniji[45];
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2005/212/PNZ z dne 24. februarja 2005 o zaplembi
premoženjske koristi, pripomočkov in premoženja, ki so povezani s kaznivimi
dejanji[46],
ter Okvirni sklep Sveta 2006/783/PNZ z dne 6. oktobra 2006 o uporabi načela
vzajemnega priznavanja odredb o zaplembi[47].
|
|
(6)
The Commission implementation reports on
Framework Decisions 2005/212/JHA, 2003/577/JHA and 2006/783/JHA show that
existing regimes for extended confiscation and for the mutual recognition of
freezing and confiscation orders are not fully effective. Confiscation is
hindered as a result of differences between Member States' legislation.
|
(6)
Poročila Komisije o izvajanju okvirnih sklepov
2005/212/PNZ, 2003/577/PNZ in 2006/783/PNZ kažejo, da sedanji sistemi za
razširjeno zaplembo in za medsebojno priznavanje odredb o zasegu in odredb o
zaplembi niso popolnoma učinkoviti. Zaplembo ovirajo razlike v zakonodaji držav
članic.
|
|
(7)
This Directive aims to amend and expand the
provisions of Framework Decisions 2001/500/JHA and 2005/212/JHA. Those Framework
Decisions should be partially replaced in relation to Member States
participating in the adoption of this Directive.
|
(7)
Namen te direktive je spremeniti in razširiti
določbe okvirnih sklepov 2001/500/PNZ in 2005/212/PNZ. Ta okvirna sklepa bi
bilo treba delno nadomestiti v zvezi s sodelovanjem držav članic, ki sodelujejo
pri sprejetju te direktive.
|
|
(8)
There is a need to broaden the existing concept
of proceeds to include the direct proceeds from criminal activity and all
indirect benefits, including subsequent reinvestment or transformation of
direct proceeds, the value of any liabilities avoided and any valuable
benefits.
|
(8)
Veljavni koncept koristi je treba razširiti, da bo
vključeval neposredne koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem, in vse
neposredne ugodnosti, vključno z naknadnimi ponovnimi vlaganji ali
preoblikovanjem neposrednih koristi, vrednostjo vseh odškodninskih obveznosti,
ki se jim posameznik izogiba, in vsemi ugodnostmi, ki imajo določeno vrednost.
|
|
(9)
Confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds
following a final decision of a court and of property of equivalent value to
those proceeds should therefore refer to this broadened concept for the
criminal offences covered by this Directive. Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA required
Member States to enable the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of
crime following a final conviction and to enable the confiscation of property
of equivalent value to the proceeds of crime. Such obligations should be
maintained for the criminal offences not covered by this Directive.
|
(9)
Opredelitev zaplembe pripomočkov za kazniva dejanja
in koristi, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, na podlagi pravnomočne odločbe
sodišča in premoženja v vrednosti teh premoženjskih koristi bi se zato morala
sklicevati na ta razširjeni koncept za kazniva dejanja, ki jih zajema ta
direktiva. Okvirni sklep 2001/500/PNZ je določil obveznost držav članic, da na
podlagi pravnomočne obsodbe omogočijo zaplembo pripomočkov za kazniva dejanja
in premoženjskih koristi, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, in da omogočijo
zaplembo premoženja v vrednosti premoženjskih koristi, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem.
Takšne obveznosti bi bilo treba ohraniti za kazniva dejanja, ki jih ta
direktiva ne zajema.
|
|
(10)
Criminal groups engage in a wide range of
criminal activities. In order to effectively tackle organised criminal
activities there may be situations where it is appropriate that a criminal
conviction is followed by the confiscation not only of property associated with
a specific crime, but also of additional property which the court determines
are the proceeds of other crimes. This approach is referred to as extended
confiscation. Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA provided for three different sets
of minimum requirements that Member States could choose in order to apply extended
confiscation. As a result, in the process of transposition, Member States have
chosen different options which resulted in divergent concepts of extended
confiscation in national jurisdictions. That divergence hampers cross-border
cooperation relevant for confiscation cases. It is therefore necessary to
further harmonise the provisions on extended confiscation by setting a single
minimum standard. Extended confiscation should apply when a national court,
based on specific facts such as those related to the nature of the criminal
offence, the legal income of a convicted person, the difference between the
financial situation and the standard of living of that person or other facts, finds
it substantially more probable that the property in question has been derived
from other criminal offences, of similar nature or
gravity as the criminal offence for which the person is convicted, than from other activities.
|
(10)
Hudodelske združbe se ukvarjajo z raznovrstnimi
kriminalnimi dejavnostmi. Pri učinkovitem boju proti dejavnostim organiziranega
kriminala lahko pride do situacij, v katerih je primerno, da kazenski obsodbi
sledi zaplemba ne le premoženja, povezanega z določenim kaznivim dejanjem,
temveč tudi drugega premoženja, za katero Sodišče ugotovi, da gre za
premoženjsko korist, pridobljeno z drugimi kaznivimi dejanji. Ta pristop pomeni
razširjeno zaplembo. Okvirni sklep 2005/212/PNZ je določil tri različne nize
minimalnih zahtev, ki bi jih države članice lahko izbrale za uporabo razširjene
zaplembe. Zato so države članice v procesu prenosa v nacionalno zakonodajo izbrale
različne možnosti, kar je povzročilo različne koncepte razširjene zaplembe v
nacionalnih pravnih redih. Ta različnost ovira čezmejno sodelovanje, ki je
pomembno v primerih zaplembe. Zato je treba nadalje uskladiti določbe o
razširjeni zaplembi z določitvijo enotnega najnižjega standarda. Koncept
razširjene zaplembe bi bilo treba uporabiti, ko nacionalno sodišče na podlagi
posebnih dejstev (kot so tista v zvezi z naravo kaznivega dejanja, zakonitim
dohodkom obsojene osebe, razliko med finančnim stanjem in življenjsko ravnjo
navedene osebe ali drugimi dejstvi) meni, da je bistveno verjetneje, da zadevno
premoženje izhaja iz drugih kaznivih dejanj, ki so podobne narave ali resnosti
kot kaznivo dejanje, za katero je oseba obsojena, kot pa da izhaja iz drugih dejavnosti.
|
|
(11)
In accordance with the principle of ne bis in
idem it is appropriate to exclude from extended confiscation
the proceeds of alleged criminal activities for which
the affected person has been finally acquitted in a previous trial or in other
cases where the ne bis in idem principle applies. Extended confiscation
should also be excluded where the similar criminal activities could not be the
subject of criminal proceedings due to prescription under national criminal
law.
|
(11)
V skladu z načelom ne bis in idem je iz
razširjene zaplembe primerno izvzeti premoženjsko korist, pridobljeno z
domnevnim kaznivim dejanjem, katerega je bil obdolženec pravnomočno oproščen v
predhodnem postopku ali v drugih postopkih, v katerih velja načelo ne bis in
idem. Uporaba koncepta razširjene zaplembe naj prav tako ne bi bila mogoča,
če podobne kriminalne dejavnosti ne bi mogle biti predmet kazenskega postopka
zaradi zastaranja po nacionalnem kazenskem pravu.
|
|
(12)
The issuance of confiscation orders generally
requires a criminal conviction. In some cases, even where a criminal conviction
cannot be achieved, it should still be possible to confiscate assets in order
to disrupt criminal activities and ensure that profits resulting from criminal
activities are not reinvested into the licit economy. Some Member States allow
confiscation where there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution,
if a court considers on the balance of probabilities that the property is of
illicit origin, and also in situations where a suspect or accused person
becomes a fugitive to avoid prosecution, is unable to stand trial for other
reasons or died before the end of criminal proceedings. This is referred to as
non-conviction based confiscation. Provision should be made to enable non-conviction based confiscation in at least the latter, limited,
circumstances in all Member States. This is in line
with Article 54.1.c) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which
provides that each State Party is to consider taking the necessary measures to
allow confiscation of illicitly acquired property without a criminal conviction,
including in cases in which the offender cannot be prosecuted by reason of
death, flight or absence.
|
(12)
Odredbo o zaplembi je na splošno mogoče izdati le
na podlagi kazenske obsodbe. V nekaterih primerih, tudi če kazenske obsodbe ni
mogoče doseči, bi moralo biti še vedno mogoče zapleniti sredstva za namene
oviranja kriminalnih dejavnosti in preprečevanja, da se koristi, pridobljene s kriminalnimi
dejavnostmi, vložijo v zakonito gospodarstvo. Nekatere države članice dopuščajo
zaplembo, kadar ni zadostnih dokazov za kazenski pregon, če sodišče po presoji
verjetnosti meni, da je premoženje nezakonitega izvora, in tudi v primerih, ko
osumljenec ali obtoženec beži pred pregonom, ne more sodelovati v postopku pred
sodiščem iz drugih razlogov ali če je umrl pred koncem kazenskega postopka. V
tem primeru gre za zaplembo, ki ne temelji na obsodbi. Določiti bi bilo treba
možnost zaplembe, ki ne temelji na obsodbi, vsaj v zadnjem primeru v omejenih
okoliščinah v vseh državah članicah. To je v skladu z členom 54.1.c) Konvencije
Združenih narodov proti korupciji, ki določa, da vsaka država pogodbenica
preuči možnosti za sprejetje potrebnih ukrepov, da se dovoli odvzem nezakonito
pridobljenega premoženja brez kazenske obsodbe, tudi kadar storilca kaznivega
dejanja ni mogoče preganjati zaradi smrti, pobega ali odsotnosti.
|
|
(13)
The practice by a suspected or accused person of
transferring property to a knowing third party with a view to avoiding
confiscation is common and increasingly widespread. The current Union legal
framework does not contain binding rules on the confiscation of property transferred
to third parties. Therefore it is becoming increasingly necessary to allow for confiscation
of property transferred to third parties, which should normally take place when
an accused person does not have property that can be confiscated. It is
appropriate to provide for third party confiscation, under certain conditions,
following an assessment, based on specific facts, that the confiscation of
property of the convicted, suspected or accused person is unlikely to succeed,
or in situations where unique objects must be restored to their rightful owner.
Furthermore, to protect the interests of bona fide third parties, such
confiscation should only be possible if the third party knew or should have
known that property was the proceeds of crime or was transferred in order to
avoid confiscation and was given for free or transferred in exchange for an
amount lower than its market value.
|
(13)
Praksa osumljenca ali obtoženca, da premoženje z
namenom izogiba zaplembi prenese na tretjo osebo, ki je s tem seznanjena, je
pogosta in vedno bolj razširjena. Veljavni pravni okvir Unije ne vsebuje
zavezujočih določb o zaplembi premoženja, prenesenega na tretje osebe. Zato
postaja nujno omogočiti zaplembo premoženja, prenesenega na tretje osebe, ki bi
jo bilo običajno treba opraviti, če obtoženec nima premoženja, ki se lahko
zapleni. Zato je primerno določiti zaplembo sredstev tretji osebi pod
določenimi pogoji, in sicer glede na oceno na podlagi določenih dejstev, da
zaplemba premoženja obsojenca, osumljenca ali obtoženca verjetno ne bo uspešna,
ali v primerih, ko je treba edinstvene predmete vrniti njihovemu zakonitemu
lastniku. Poleg tega bi morala biti zaradi zaščite interesov dobrovernih
tretjih oseb takšna zaplemba mogoča le, če je tretja oseba vedela ali bi morala
vedeti, da je bilo premoženje pridobljeno s kaznivim dejanjem ali preneseno v
izogib zaplembi in je bilo dano neodplačno ali proti plačilu zneska, nižji od
njegove tržne vrednosti.
|
|
(14)
Provisional measures should be provided for in
order to ensure that property remains available with a view to possible later
confiscation. Such freezing measures should be ordered by a court. In order to
prevent the dissipation of property before a freezing order can be issued by a
court, the competent authorities in the Member States should be empowered to immediately
prohibit the transfer, conversion, disposition or movement of property in
danger of being hidden or transferred out of the jurisdiction, on a request for
a freezing order with a view of possible later confiscation, pending the
determination by a court.
|
(14)
Treba bi bilo določiti začasne ukrepe za
zagotovitev, da premoženje ostane na voljo zaradi morebitne poznejše zaplembe.
Takšne ukrepe zamrznitve bi moralo odrediti sodišče. Za preprečitev
zapravljanja premoženja preden lahko sodišče izda odredbo o zamrznitvi, bi bilo
treba pristojne organe v državah članicah pooblastiti za takojšnjo izdajo
prepovedi prenosa ali pretvorbe premoženja, razpolaganja ali prometa z njim
zaradi nevarnosti, da se premoženje skrije ali prenese izven območja
pristojnosti, in sicer na podlagi vloge za izdajo odredbe o zamrznitvi zaradi
morebitne poznejše zaplembe, o kateri odloči sodišče.
|
|
(15)
Suspected or accused persons often hide property
throughout the entire duration of criminal proceedings. As a result confiscation
orders cannot be executed, leaving those subject to confiscations orders to benefit
from their property once they have served their sentence. It is accordingly necessary
to enable the determination of the precise extent of the property to be
confiscated even after a final conviction for a criminal offence, in order to
permit the full execution of confiscation orders when no property or
insufficient property was initially discovered and the confiscation order
remains unexecuted. Given the limitation of the right to property by freezing
orders, such provisional measures should not be maintained longer than
necessary to preserve the availability of the property with a view of possible
future confiscation. This may require a regular review by the court in order to
ensure that their purpose of preventing the dissipation of property remains
valid.
|
(15)
Osumljenci ali obtoženci pogosto skrijejo
premoženje za ves čas trajanja kazenskega postopka. Posledično odredb o
zaplembi ni mogoče izvršiti, zaradi česar osebe, katerih premoženje je predmet
odredbe o zaplembi, to premoženje koristijo po prestani kazni. Zato je treba
omogočiti, da bo tudi po pravnomočni obsodbi za kaznivo dejanje mogoče natančno
določiti obseg premoženja, da se dovoli izvršitev odredb o zaplembi v celoti,
če na začetku ni bilo odkrito nobeno premoženje ali je bilo odkrito nezadostno
premoženje in odredba o zaplembi ni bila izvršena. Ker odredbe o zamrznitvi
omejujejo lastninsko pravico, takšni začasni ukrepi ne bi smeli veljati dlje,
kot je to potrebno za ohranitev razpoložljivosti premoženja zaradi morebitne
poznejše zaplembe. Zato bo morebiti treba določiti možnost redne sodne presoje,
da se zagotovi ohranitev veljavnosti namena odredb o zamrznitvi za preprečitev
zapravljanja premoženja.
|
|
(16)
Property frozen with a view to later
confiscation should be managed adequately in order not to lose its economic
value. Member States should take the necessary measures including sale or
transfer of the property to minimise such losses. Member States should take
relevant measures, such as the establishment of national centralised Asset
Management Offices or equivalent mechanisms (for example where such functions
are decentralised), in order to properly manage the assets frozen before
confiscation and preserve their value, pending judicial determination.
|
(16)
S premoženjem, zamrznjenim z namenom poznejše
zaplembe, bi bilo treba ustrezno upravljati, da se ne bi zmanjšala njegova
tržna vrednost. Države članice bi morale sprejeti potrebne ukrepe, vključno s
prodajo ali prenosom premoženja, za zmanjšanje takšnih izgub. Sprejeti bi
morale ustrezne ukrepe, kot so ustanovitev nacionalnih centraliziranih uradov
za upravljanje premoženja ali vzpostavitev enakovrednih mehanizmov (na primer,
če so takšne naloge decentralizirane), za ustrezno upravljanje sredstev,
zamrznjenih pred zaplembo, in ohranjanje njihove vrednosti do izdaje sodne
odločbe.
|
|
(17)
Reliable data sources on the freezing and
confiscation of the proceeds of crime are scarce. In order to allow for the evaluation of this Directive, it is necessary to collect a comparable minimum set of appropriate
statistical data on asset tracing, judicial and asset disposal activities.
|
(17)
Zanesljivi viri podatkov o zamrznitvi in zaplembi
premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem, so redki. Da se omogoči
ocena te direktive, je treba zbrati primerljive minimalne nize ustreznih
statističnih podatkov o sledenju premoženja ter pravosodnih dejavnostih in
dejavnostih prodaje premoženja.
|
|
(18)
This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles
recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and
notably the right to property, the right to respect for private and family
life, the right to protection of personal data, the right to an effective
remedy and to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and the right of
defence, the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings
for the same criminal offence and the principles of legality and proportionality
of criminal offences. This Directive has to be implemented in accordance with
these rights and principles.
|
(18)
Ta direktiva spoštuje temeljne pravice in upošteva
načela, priznana v Listini Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, zlasti
lastninsko pravico, pravico do spoštovanja zasebnega in družinskega življenja,
pravico do varstva osebnih podatkov, pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva
in nepristranskega sodišča, domnevo nedolžnosti in pravico do obrambe, pravico,
da se za isto kaznivo dejanje kazensko ne preganja ali kaznuje dvakrat, ter
načeli zakonitosti in sorazmernosti kaznivega dejanja in kazni. To direktivo je treba izvajati v skladu s temi
pravicami in načeli.
|
|
(19)
The measures provided for in this Directive
affect substantially the rights of persons, not only of suspected or accused
persons but also of third parties who are not being prosecuted. It is therefore
necessary to provide for specific safeguards and judicial remedies in order to guarantee
the preservation of their fundamental rights in the implementation of the provisions
of this Directive.
|
(19)
Ukrepi, ki so določeni v tej direktivi, bistveno
vplivajo na pravice oseb, ne le na pravice osumljencev ali obtožencev, ampak
tudi na pravice tretjih oseb, ki se jih kazensko ne preganja. Zato je treba
zagotoviti posebna jamstva in pravna sredstva za zagotavljanje ohranitve
njihovih temeljnih pravic pri izvajanju določb te direktive.
|
|
(20)
Since the objective of this Directive, namely facilitating
confiscation of property in criminal matters, cannot be sufficiently achieved
by the Member States and can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may
adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in
Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of
proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive
does not go beyond what is
necessary in order to achieve that objective.
|
(20)
Ker cilja te direktive, in sicer omogočanja
zaplembe premoženja v kazenskih zadevah, ni mogoče zadovoljivo uresničiti z
ukrepi držav članic in ga je lažje doseči na ravni Unije, lahko Unija sprejme
ukrepe v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti, kakor je določeno v členu 5 Pogodbe o
Evropski uniji. V skladu z načelom
sorazmernosti, kakor je določeno v navedenem členu, ta direktiva ne presega
tistega, kar je potrebno za doseganje navedenega cilja.
|
|
(21)
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the
Protocol 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, [the United Kingdom and Ireland has notified its wish to take part in
the adoption and application of this Directive] or [and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United
Kingdom and Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is
not bound by it or subject to its application.]
|
(21)
V skladu s členoma 1 in 2 Protokola o stališču
Združenega kraljestva in Irske glede območja svobode, varnosti in pravice, ki
je priložen Pogodbi o Evropski uniji in Pogodbi o delovanju Evropske unije,
[sta Združeno kraljestvo in Irska predložila uradno obvestilo, da želita
sodelovati pri sprejetju in uporabi te uredbe] ali [Združeno
kraljestvo in Irska brez poseganja v člen 4 navedenega protokola ne
sodelujeta pri sprejetju te direktive, ki zato zanju ni zavezujoča niti se v
njiju ne uporablja].
|
|
(22)
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the
Protocol 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.
|
(22)
V skladu s členoma 1 in 2 Protokola
(št. 22) o stališču Danske, ki je priložen Pogodbi o Evropski uniji in
Pogodbi o delovanju Evropske unije, Danska ne sodeluje pri sprejetju te
direktive, ki zato zanjo ni zavezujoča in se v njej ne uporablja –
|
|
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
|
SPREJELA NASLEDNJO DIREKTIVO:
|
|
TITLE I
|
NASLOV 1
|
|
OBJECTIVE
AND SCOPE
|
CILJ
IN PODROČJE UPORABE
|
|
Article 1
|
Člen 1
|
|
Subject
matter
|
Vsebina
|
|
This Directive establishes minimum rules on
the freezing of property with a view to possible later confiscation and on the
confiscation of property in criminal matters.
|
Ta direktiva določa minimalna pravila o
zamrznitvi premoženja za namene morebitne poznejše zaplembe in o zaplembi
premoženja v kazenskih zadevah.
|
|
Article 2
|
Člen 2
|
|
Definitions
|
Opredelitev
pojmov
|
|
For the purpose of this Directive, the
following definitions shall apply:
|
Za namene te direktive se uporabljajo
naslednje opredelitve pojmov:
|
|
(1)
‘proceeds’ means any economic advantage derived
from a criminal offence; it may consist of any form of property and includes
any subsequent reinvestment or transformation of direct proceeds by a suspected
or accused person and any valuable benefits;
|
(1)
„premoženjska korist“ pomeni vsako gospodarsko
korist, pridobljeno s kaznivim dejanjem; zajema lahko vse oblike
premoženja in vključuje vsakršno nadaljnje ponovno vlaganje ali preoblikovanje
neposredne premoženjske koristi s strani osumljenca ali obtoženca in vse
ugodnosti, ki imajo določeno vrednost;
|
|
(2)
‘property’ means property of any description,
whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, and legal documents or
instruments evidencing title or interest in such property;
|
(2)
„premoženje“ pomeni vsakršno premoženje, materialno
ali nematerialno, premično ali nepremično, ter pravne dokumente ali listine, ki
izkazujejo pravni naslov ali pravni interes na takšnem premoženju;
|
|
(3)
‘instrumentalities’ means any property used or
intended to be used, in any manner, wholly or in part, to commit a criminal
offence or criminal offences;
|
(3)
„pripomočki za kazniva dejanja“ pomenijo katero
koli premoženje, ki se uporablja ali ki je na kakršen koli način, v celoti ali
delno, namenjeno storitvi kaznivega dejanja ali kaznivih dejanj;
|
|
(4)
‘confiscation’ means a penalty or a measure,
ordered by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence
resulting in the final deprivation of property;
|
(4)
„zaplemba“ pomeni kazen ali ukrep, o katerem
sodišče odloči na koncu postopka v zvezi s kaznivim dejanjem in ki vodi k
dokončnemu odvzemu premoženja;
|
|
(5)
‘freezing’ means the temporary prohibition of
the transfer, destruction, conversion, disposition or movement of property or
temporarily assuming custody or control of property;
|
(5)
„zamrznitev“ pomeni začasno prepoved prenosa,
uničenja ali preoblikovanja premoženja, razpolaganja ali prometa z njim ali
začasen prevzem skrbništva ali nadzora nad premoženjem;
|
|
(6)
'criminal offence' means a criminal offence
covered by:
|
(6)
„kaznivo dejanje“ pomeni kaznivo dejanje, ki ga
določa:
|
|
(a)
the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article
K.3 (2) (c) of the Treaty of the European Union on the fight against corruption
involving officials of the European Communities or officials of the Member
States of the European Union[48],
|
(a)
Konvencija o boju proti korupciji uradnikov
Evropskih skupnosti ali uradnikov držav članic Evropske unije, ki je bila
pripravljena na podlagi člena K.3(2)(c) Pogodbe o Evropski uniji[48],
|
|
(b)
Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA of 29
May 2000 on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions
against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro[49],
|
(b)
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2000/383/PNZ z dne 29. maja
2000 o povečanju zaščite s kaznimi in drugimi sankcijami za ponarejanje v zvezi
z uvedbo eura[49],
|
|
(c)
Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA of 28
May 2001 on combating fraud and counterfeiting on non-cash means of payment[50],
|
(c)
Okvirni Sklep Sveta 2001/413/PNZ z dne 28. maja
2001 o boju proti goljufiji in ponarejanju v zvezi z negotovinskimi plačilnimi
sredstvi,[50]
|
|
(d)
Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13
June 2002 on combating terrorism[51], as amended by Council
Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 9 December 2008[52],
|
(d)
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/475/PNZ z dne 13. junija
2002 o boju proti terorizmu[51],
kakor je bil spremenjen z Okvirnim sklepom Sveta 2008/919/PNZ z dne 9. decembra
2008[52],
|
|
(e)
Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26
June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing
and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime[53],
|
(e)
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2001/500/PNZ z dne 26. junija
2001 o pranju denarja, identifikaciji, sledenju, zamrznitvi, zasegu in zaplembi
pripomočkov za kazniva dejanja in premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim
dejanjem[53],
|
|
(f)
Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on
combating corruption in the private sector[54],
|
(f)
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2003/568/PNZ o boju proti
korupciji v zasebnem sektorju,[54]
|
|
(g)
Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25
October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of
criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking[55],
|
(g)
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2004/757/PNZ z dne 25. oktobra
2004 o opredelitvi minimalnih določb glede elementov kaznivih dejanj in kazni
na področju nedovoljenega prometa s prepovedanimi drogami[55],
|
|
(h)
Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA of 24
February 2005 on attacks against information systems[56],
|
(h)
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2005/222/PNZ z dne 24.
februarja 2005 o napadih na informacijske sisteme[56],
|
|
(i)
Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA
of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime[57],
|
(i)
Okvirni Sklep Sveta 2008/841/PNZ z dne 24. oktobra
2008 o boju proti organiziranemu kriminalu[57],
|
|
(j)
Directive 2011/36/EU of 5 April 2011 on
preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its
victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA[58],
|
(j)
Direktiva 2011/36/EU z dne 5. aprila 2011 o
preprečevanju trgovine z ljudmi in boju proti njej ter zaščiti njenih žrtev in
o nadomestitvi Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2002/629/PNZ[58],
|
|
(k)
Directive 2011/92/EU of 13 December 2011 on
combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child
pornography and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA[59].
|
(k)
Direktiva 2011/92/EU z dne 13. decembra 2011 o boju
proti spolni zlorabi in spolnemu izkoriščanju otrok ter otroški pornografiji in
nadomestitvi Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2004/68/PNZ[59].
|
|
TITLE II
|
NASLOV II
|
|
FREEZING
AND CONFISCATION
|
ZAMRZNITEV
IN ZAPLEMBA
|
|
Article 3
|
Člen 3
|
|
Conviction
based confiscation
|
Zaplemba
na podlagi obsodbe
|
|
1.
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to enable it to confiscate, either wholly or in part,
instrumentalities and proceeds following a final conviction for a criminal
offence.
|
1.
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe, ki ji
omogočijo, da na podlagi pravnomočne obsodbe za kaznivo dejanje bodisi v celoti
bodisi delno zapleni pripomočke za kazniva dejanja in premoženjsko korist.
|
|
2.
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to enable it to confiscate property the value of which corresponds to the
proceeds following a final conviction for a criminal offence.
|
2.
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe, ki ji
omogočijo, da na podlagi pravnomočne obsodbe za kaznivo dejanje zapleni
premoženje v vrednosti premoženjske koristi.
|
|
Article 4
|
Člen 4
|
|
Extended
powers of confiscation
|
Razširjene
pristojnosti za zaplembo
|
|
1.
Each Member State shall adopt the necessary
measures to enable it to confiscate, either wholly or in part, property
belonging to a person convicted of a criminal offence where, based on specific
facts, a court finds it substantially more probable that the property in
question has been derived by the convicted person from similar criminal
activities than from other activities.
|
1.
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe, ki ji
omogočijo, da bodisi v celoti bodisi delno zapleni premoženje, ki je v lasti
osebe, obsojene za kaznivo dejanje, če sodišče na podlagi posebnih dejstev
meni, da je bistveno bolj verjetno, da je obsojena oseba zadevno premoženje
pridobila iz podobnih kriminalnih dejavnosti, kot pa iz drugih dejavnosti.
|
|
2.
Confiscation shall be excluded where the similar
criminal activities referred to in paragraph 1
|
2.
Zaplemba ni mogoča, če podobne kriminalne
dejavnosti iz odstavka 1:
|
|
(a)
could not be the subject of criminal proceedings
due to prescription under national criminal law; or
|
(a)
ne morejo biti predmet kazenskega postopka zaradi
zastaranja po nacionalnem kazenskem pravu; ali
|
|
(b)
have already been subject to criminal
proceedings which resulted in the final acquittal of the person or in other
cases where the ne bis in idem principle applies.
|
(b)
so že bile predmet kazenskega postopka, v katerem
je bila oseba pravnomočno oproščena, ali v drugih primerih, ko velja načelo ne
bis in idem.
|
|
Article 5
|
Člen 5
|
|
Non-conviction
based confiscation
|
Zaplemba
brez obsodbe
|
|
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to enable it to confiscate proceeds and instrumentalities without a
criminal conviction, following proceedings which could, if the suspected or
accused person had been able to stand trial, have led to a criminal conviction,
where:
|
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe,
ki ji omogočijo, da zapleni premoženjske koristi in pripomočke za kaznivo
dejanje brez kazenske obsodbe po postopku, v katerem bi bil osumljenec ali
obtoženec, če bi lahko sodeloval v postopku, obsojen za kaznivo dejanje, in
sicer v primeru:
|
|
(a)
the death or permanent illness of the suspected
or accused person prevents any further prosecution; or
|
(a)
smrti ali kronične bolezni osumljenca ali
obtoženca, ki preprečuje nadaljnji kazenski pregon; ali
|
|
(b)
the illness or flight from prosecution or
sentencing of the suspected or accused person prevents effective prosecution
within a reasonable time, and poses the serious risk that it could be barred by
statutory limitations.
|
(b)
bolezni osumljenca ali obtoženca ali njegovega bega
pred kazenskim pregonom ali kaznovanjem, ki preprečuje učinkovit kazenski
pregon v razumnem času in pomeni resno tveganje, da bi bil kazenski pregon
onemogočen zaradi zastaranja.
|
|
Article 6
|
Člen 6
|
|
Confiscation
from a third party
|
Zaplemba
sredstev tretji osebi
|
|
1.
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to enable it to confiscate:
|
1.
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe, ki ji
omogočijo, da zapleni:
|
|
(a)
proceeds which were transferred to third parties
by a convicted person or on his behalf, or by suspected or accused persons
under the circumstances of Article 5, or
|
(a)
premoženjsko korist, ki jo je na tretje osebe
prenesel obsojenec ali nekdo v njegovem imenu, ali osumljenec ali obtoženec v
okoliščinah iz člena 5, ali
|
|
(b)
other property of the convicted person, which
was transferred to third parties in order to avoid confiscation of property the
value of which corresponds to the proceeds.
|
(b)
drugo premoženje obsojenca, ki je bilo preneseno na
tretje osebe v izogib zaplembi premoženja, in sicer v vrednosti premoženjske
koristi.
|
|
2.
The confiscation of proceeds or property
referred to in paragraph 1 shall be possible where the property is subject to
restitution or where
|
2.
Zaplemba premoženjske koristi ali premoženja iz
odstavka 1 je mogoča, če je premoženje predmet vračila ali če:
|
|
(a)
an assessment, based on specific facts relating
to the convicted, suspected or accused person, indicates that the confiscation
of property of the convicted person, or of the suspected or accused person
under the circumstances of Article 5, is unlikely to succeed, and
|
(a)
ocena na podlagi posebnih dejstev v zvezi z
obsojencem, osumljencem ali obtožencem kaže, da bo zaplemba premoženja
obsojenca, osumljenca ali obtoženca v okoliščinah iz člena 5 verjetno
neuspešna, in
|
|
(b)
the proceeds or property were transferred for
free or in exchange for an amount lower than their market value when the third
party:
|
(b)
sta bila premoženjska korist ali premoženje
prenesena neodplačno ali proti plačilu zneska, ki je nižji od tržne vrednosti,
če je tretja oseba:
|
|
(i) in the case of proceeds, knew about their
illicit origin, or, in the absence of such knowledge, a reasonable person in
its position would have suspected that their origin was illicit, based on
concrete facts and circumstances;
|
(i) v primeru premoženjske koristi vedela za njen
nezakoniti izvor, ali, če tega ni vedela, če bi razumna oseba na njenem mestu
domnevala, da je njen izvor nezakonit, in sicer na podlagi konkretnih dejstev
in okoliščin;
|
|
(ii) in the case of other property, knew that
it was transferred in order to avoid confiscation of property the value of
which corresponds to the proceeds or, in the absence of such knowledge, a
reasonable person in its position would have suspected that it was transferred
to avoid such confiscation, based on concrete facts and circumstances.
|
(ii) v primeru drugega premoženja vedela, da je
bilo preneseno v izogib zaplembi premoženja v vrednosti premoženjske koristi,
ali, če tega ni vedela, če bi razumna oseba na njenem mestu domnevala, da je
bilo premoženje preneseno v izogib takšni zaplembi, in sicer na podlagi konkretnih
dejstev in okoliščin.
|
|
Article 7
|
Člen 7
|
|
Freezing
|
Zamrznitev
|
|
1.
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to enable it to freeze property in danger of being dissipated, hidden
or transferred out of the jurisdiction with a view to possible later
confiscation. Such measures shall be ordered by a court.
|
1.
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe, ki ji
omogočijo zamrznitev premoženja, za katerega obstaja nevarnost, da se zapravi,
skrije ali prenese izven njene pristojnosti, in sicer z namenom morebitne
poznejše zaplembe. Take ukrepe odredi sodišče.
|
|
2.
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to enable its competent authorities to immediately freeze property
when there is a high risk of dissipation, hiding or transfer of that property
before a court's decision. Such measures shall be confirmed by a court as soon
as possible.
|
2.
Vsaka država članica sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe,
da lahko njeni pristojni organi zamrznejo premoženje takoj, ko se pojavi velika
nevarnost, da se navedeno premoženje pred izdajo sodne odločbe zapravi, skrije
ali prenese. Take ukrepe potrdi sodišče, kakor hitro je to mogoče.
|
|
Article 8
|
Člen 8
|
|
Safeguards
|
Zaščitni
ukrepi
|
|
1.
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to ensure that the persons affected by the measures provided for under
this Directive have the right to an effective remedy and that suspects have the
right to a fair trial, in order to preserve their rights.
|
1.
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe, da se
osebam, na katere vplivajo ukrepi iz te direktive, zagotovi in varuje pravica
do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva, osumljencem pa pravica do nepristranskega
sodišča.
|
|
2.
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to ensure that reasons are given for any decision to freeze property, that
the decision is communicated to the person affected as soon as possible after
its execution and that it remains in force only for as long as it is necessary
to preserve the property with a view to future confiscation. Each Member State shall
provide for the effective possibility to appeal against the decision to freeze
by the persons whose property is affected before a court at any time before a
decision on confiscation is taken. Frozen property which is not subsequently
confiscated shall be returned immediately to its legitimate owner.
|
2.
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe za
zagotovitev, da se odločba o zamrznitvi premoženja obrazloži, da se takoj po
izvršbi, ko je to mogoče, pošlje osebi, v zvezi s katero je izdana, in da
ostane v veljavi samo, dokler je to potrebno za ohranitev premoženja glede
prihodnjih zaplemb. Vsaka država članica osebi, na premoženje katere vpliva
odločba o zamrznitvi, pred sprejetjem odločbe o zaplembi zagotovi učinkovito
možnost pritožbe zoper to odločbo o zamrznitvi v postopku pred sodiščem.
Zamrznjeno premoženje, ki pozneje ni zaplenjeno, je treba takoj vrniti
zakonitemu lastniku.
|
|
3.
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to ensure that reasons are given for any decision to confiscate and that
the decision is communicated to the person affected. Each Member State shall
provide for the effective possibility to appeal against the decision to
confiscate before a court by the persons whose property is affected.
|
3.
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe za
zagotovitev, da se vsaka odločba o zaplembi obrazloži in da se pošlje osebi, v zvezi
s katero je izdana. Vsaka država članica osebi, na premoženje katere vpliva
odločba o zaplembi, zagotovi učinkovito možnost pritožbe zoper to odločbo v
postopku pred sodiščem.
|
|
4.
In proceedings referred to in Article 4, the
suspected or accused person shall have an effective possibility to contest the
probability on the basis of which the property concerned is considered to be proceeds.
|
4.
V postopku iz člena 4 ima osumljenec ali obtoženec
učinkovito možnost izpodbijanja domneve, na podlagi katere naj bi bilo zadevno
premoženje premoženjska korist.
|
|
5.
In the cases referred to in Article 5, the
person whose property is affected by the decision to confiscate shall be
represented by a lawyer throughout the proceedings in order to pursue the
rights of the defence of the person relating to the establishment of the
criminal offence and to the determination of the proceeds and instrumentalities.
|
5.
V primerih iz člena 5 osebo, na katere premoženje
vpliva odločba o zaplembi, zastopa odvetnik ves čas postopka z namenom
uveljavljanja njenih pravic obrambe v zvezi z dokazovanjem kaznivega dejanja
ter določitvijo premoženjske koristi in pripomočkov za kaznivo dejanje.
|
|
6.
Where the person whose property is affected is a
third party, the person or the person’s lawyer shall be informed of the
proceedings that can lead to a decision to confiscate that property and shall
be allowed to participate in those proceedings to the extent necessary to
effectively preserve the person's rights. That person shall have at least the
right to be heard, the right to ask questions and the right to provide evidence
before a final decision on confiscation is taken.
|
6.
Kadar je oseba, na katere premoženje vpliva
odločba, tretja oseba, se ona ali njen odvetnik obvesti o postopku, v katerem
je lahko izdana odločba o zaplembi navedenega premoženja, in se ji dovoli
sodelovanje v navedenem postopku v obsegu, ki je potreben za učinkovito varstvo
njenih pravic. Ta oseba ima vsaj pravico do izjave, pravico do postavljanja
vprašanj in pravico do predložitve dokazov pred sprejetjem pravnomočne odločbe
o zaplembi.
|
|
Article 9
|
Člen 9
|
|
Determination
of the extent of the confiscation and effective execution
|
Določitev
obsega zaplembe in učinkovita izvršba
|
|
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to make it possible to determine the precise extent of the property to
be confiscated following a final conviction for a criminal offence or following
proceedings as foreseen in Article 5, that has resulted in a decision to
confiscate, and to allow further measures to be taken to the extent necessary to
effectively execute that decision to confiscate.
|
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe,
da omogoči določitev natančnega obsega premoženja, ki se zapleni na podlagi
pravnomočne obsodbe za kaznivo dejanje ali postopka iz člena 5, v katerem je
bila izdana odločba o zaplembi, in da omogoči sprejetje nadaljnjih ukrepov v
obsegu, ki je potreben za učinkovito izvršbo navedene odločbe o zaplembi.
|
|
Article 10
|
Člen 10
|
|
Management
of frozen property
|
Upravljanje
zamrznjenega premoženja
|
|
1.
Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures, such as the establishment of national centralised offices or
equivalent mechanisms, to ensure the adequate management of property frozen with
a view of possible later confiscation.
|
1.
Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe, kot
so ustanovitev nacionalnih centralnih uradov ali vzpostavitev enakovrednih
mehanizmov, da zagotovi ustrezno upravljanje premoženja, zamrznjenega za namene
morebitne poznejše zaplembe.
|
|
2.
Each Member State shall ensure that the measures
referred to in paragraph 1 optimise the economic value of such property, and
shall include the sale or transfer of property which is liable to decline in
value.
|
2.
Vsaka država članica zagotovi, da se z ukrepi iz
odstavka 1 doseže čim večja gospodarska vrednost takšnega premoženja, in
da ukrepi zajemajo tudi prodajo ali prenos premoženja, katerega vrednost se bo
verjetno zmanjšala.
|
|
TITLE III
|
NASLOV III
|
|
FINAL
PROVISIONS
|
KONČNE DOLOČBE
|
|
Article 11
|
Člen 11
|
|
Statistics
|
Statistični
podatki
|
|
Member States shall regularly collect and
maintain comprehensive statistics from the relevant authorities in order to
review the effectiveness of their confiscation systems. The statistics
collected shall be sent to the Commission each year and shall include for all criminal
offences:
|
Države članice redno zbirajo in vzdržujejo
izčrpne statistične podatke ustreznih organov za pregled učinkovitosti njihovih
sistemov zaplembe. Zbrani statistični podatki se pošljejo Komisiji vsako leto
in za vsa kazniva dejanja zajemajo naslednje podatke:
|
|
(a)
the number of freezing orders executed,
|
(a)
število izvršenih odredb o zamrznitvi;
|
|
(b)
the
number of confiscation orders executed,
|
(b)
število
izvršenih odredb o zaplembi;
|
|
(c)
the
value of property frozen,
|
(c)
vrednost
zamrznjenega premoženja;
|
|
(d)
the
value of property recovered,
|
(d)
vrednost
izterjanega premoženja;
|
|
(e)
the
number of requests for freezing orders to be executed in another Member State,
|
(e)
število
vlog za izdajo odredbe o zamrznitvi, ki jo je treba izvršiti v drugi državi
članici;
|
|
(f)
the
number of requests for confiscation orders to be executed in another Member
State,
|
(f)
število
vlog za izdajo odredbe o zaplembi, ki jo je treba izvršiti v drugi državi
članici;
|
|
(g)
the
value of the property recovered following execution in another Member State,
|
(g)
vrednost
premoženja, izterjanega z izvršbo v drugi državi članici;
|
|
(h)
the
value of the property destined to be reused for law enforcement, prevention or social
purposes,
|
(h)
vrednost
premoženja, namenjenega za ponovno uporabo za namene pregona, preprečevanja ali
socialne namene;
|
|
(i)
the
number of cases where confiscation is ordered in correlation with the number of
convictions for the criminal offences covered by this Directive,
|
(i)
število
zadev, ko je bila zaplemba odrejena, v povezavi s številom obsodb za kazniva
dejanja, ki jih zajema ta direktiva;
|
|
(j)
the
number of requests for freezing and confiscation orders refused by the courts,
|
(j)
število
vlog za izdajo odredbe o zamrznitvi in odredbe o zaplembi, ki so jih sodišča
zavrnila;
|
|
(k)
the
number of requests for freezing and confiscation orders not upheld following
legal challenges.
|
(k)
število
vlog za izdajo odredb o zamrznitvi in odredb o zaplembi, ki niso bile izvršene
zaradi uspešne uveljavitve pravnega sredstva.
|
|
Article 12
|
Člen 12
|
|
Transposition
|
Prenos
v nacionalno zakonodajo
|
|
1.
Member States shall bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this
Directive by … [two years from the date of adoption]. They shall
forthwith transmit to the Commission the text of those provisions.
|
1.
Države članice sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise,
potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo, do … [dve leti od dne sprejetja
direktive]. Komisiji nemudoma pošljejo besedilo navedenih predpisov.
|
|
When Member States adopt those provisions, they
shall contain a reference to 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.
|
Države članice se v sprejetih predpisih sklicujejo
na to direktivo ali pa sklic nanjo navedejo ob njihovi uradni objavi. Države
članice določijo način takega sklicevanja.
|
|
2.
Member States shall communicate to the
Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in
the field covered by this Directive.
|
2.
Države članice Komisiji sporočijo besedilo
temeljnih predpisov nacionalnega prava, ki jih sprejmejo na področju, ki ga
ureja ta direktiva.
|
|
Article
13
|
Člen 13
|
|
Reporting
|
Poročanje
|
|
The Commission shall, by [three years after
transposition deadline] submit a report to the European Parliament and the
Council, assessing the impact of existing national law on confiscation and
asset recovery, accompanied, if necessary, by adequate proposals.
|
Komisija do [tri leta po roku za prenos v
nacionalno zakonodajo] predloži poročilo Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu, v
katerem oceni vpliv veljavne nacionalne zakonodaje na področju zaplembe in
izterjave, ki mu po potrebi priloži ustrezno predloge.
|
|
Article 14
|
Člen 14
|
|
Replacement of Joint Action 98/699/JHA and of Framework Decisions
2001/500/JHA and 2005/212/JHA
|
Zamenjava Skupnega ukrepa 98/699/PNZ ter okvirnih
sklepov 2001/500/PNZ in 2005/212/PNZ
|
|
1.
Joint Action 98/699/JHA, point (a) of Article 1 and
Articles 3 and 4 of Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA, and Articles 1 and 3 of
Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, are hereby replaced in relation to Member
States participating in the adoption of this Directive, without prejudice to
the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limit for
transposition of the Framework Decisions into national law.
|
1.
Skupni ukrep 98/699/PNZ, točka (a) člena 1, člena 3
in 4 Okvirnega sklepa 2001/500/PNZ ter člena 1 in 3 Okvirnega sklepa
2005/212/PNZ se s to direktivo nadomestijo glede držav članic, ki sodelujejo
pri sprejetju te direktive, in sicer brez poseganja v obveznosti držav članic v
zvezi z rokom za prenos okvirnih sklepov v nacionalno zakonodajo.
|
|
2.
In relation to Member States participating in
the adoption of this Directive, references to the Joint Action and to the
provisions of the Framework Decisions referred to in paragraph 1 shall be
construed as references to this Directive.
|
2.
Za države članice, ki sodelujejo pri sprejetju te
direktive, se sklicevanja na Skupni ukrep in določbe okvirnih sklepov iz
odstavka 1 štejejo kot sklicevanja na to direktivo.
|
|
Article 15
Entry into force
|
Člen 15
Začetek veljavnosti
|
|
This Directive shall enter into force on
the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal
of the European Union.
|
Ta direktiva začne veljati dvajseti dan po
objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
|
|
Article 16
Addressees
|
Člen 16
Naslovniki direktive
|
|
This
Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.
|
Ta
direktiva je naslovljena na države članice v skladu s Pogodbama.
|
|
Done at Brussels,
|
V Bruslju,
|
|
For the European Parliament For
the Council
|
Za Evropski parlament Za
Svet
|
|
The President The
President
|
Predsednik Predsednik
|
|
[1] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
"Estimating illicit financial flows resulting from drug trafficking and
other transnational organised crime", October 2011.
|
[1] Urad Združenih narodov za droge in kriminal, „Ocena
nezakonitih finančnih tokov, ki izhajajo iz prometa s prepovedanimi drogami in
iz drugih kaznivih dejanj mednarodnega organiziranega kriminala“, oktober 2011.
|
|
[2] More estimates exist on the value of criminal
markets. The global drug trade generated USD 321 billion in 2005 according to
the United Nations. Trafficking in human beings is globally worth USD 42.5
billion per year according to the Council of Europe. The global market in
counterfeit goods was estimated at up to USD 250 billion per year by the OECD.
Corruption in the EU has been estimated to cost as much as 1 % of EU GDP per
year.
|
[2] Obstaja več ocen o višini prihodkov na trgih kaznivih
dejavnosti. Svetovni promet s prepovedanimi drogami je leta 2005 po
poročilih Združenih narodov ustvaril 321 milijarde USD prihodkov. Vrednost
prihodkov trgovine z ljudmi je po poročilih Sveta Evrope na svetovni ravni
vredna 42,5 milijarde USD letno. Prihodke na svetovnem trgu s ponarejenim
blagom je OECD ocenil v višini 250 milijard USD letno. Ocenjeno je
bilo, da korupcija v EU davkoplačevalce stane 1 odstotek BDP EU letno.
|
|
[3] See Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions on
confiscation and asset recovery of June 2010, Council document 7769/3/10. For
similar statements, see the Executive Summary of the EU Organised Crime Threat
Assessment 2011 and the Eurojust Annual Report 2010.
|
[3] Glej sklepe Sveta za pravosodje in notranje zadeve o
zaplembi in odvzemu premoženjske koristi iz junija 2010, dokument Sveta
7769/3/10. Za podobne izjave glej Oceno nevarnosti organiziranega kriminala v
EU za leto 2011 in Letno poročilo Eurojusta za leto 2010.
|
|
[4] See also Council Conclusions on Economic Crisis
Prevention and Support for Economic Activity, 23.4.2010 (Council document
7881/10), point 7d.
|
[4] Glej tudi točko 7d Sklepov Sveta o preprečevanju
gospodarskih kriz in podpori gospodarskim dejavnostim, z dne
23. aprila 2010 (dokument Sveta 7881/10).
|
|
[5] For example, in the United Kingdom an official
estimate in 2006 put organised criminal revenue at £15 billion, while in the
same year £125 million were recovered by the State, see Home Office
(2006) cited in the 2010 Europol Organised Crime Threat Assessment.
|
[5] Na primer, v Združenem kraljestvu je bil leta 2006
uradno ocenjeni znesek prihodkov od kaznivih dejanj 15 milijard GBP,
istega leta pa je država izterjala 125 milijonov GBP; glej podatke
notranjega ministrstva (Home Office (2006)), navedene v Europolovi Oceni
nevarnosti organiziranega kriminala za leto 2010.
|
|
[6] "An open and secure Europe serving and
protecting the citizens", Council document
17024/09, adopted by the European Council on 10/11 December 2009.
|
[6] „Stockholmski program – odprta in
varna Evropa, ki služi državljanom in jih varuje“, dokument Sveta 17024/09, ki
ga je Evropski svet sprejel 10. in 11. decembra 2009.
|
|
[7] Council document 7769/3/10.
|
[7] Dokument Sveta 7769/3/10.
|
|
[8] COM(2010) 673 final of 22.11.2010.
|
[8] COM(2010) 673 konč. z dne 22. novembra 2010.
|
|
[9] Third party confiscation
involves the confiscation of assets that have been transferred by an investigated
or convicted person to a third party.
|
[9] Zaplemba sredstev tretjim osebam pomeni odvzem
premoženjske koristi, ki jo obdolženec ali obsojenec prenese na tretjo osebo.
|
|
[10] Non-conviction based procedures
allow the freezing and confiscation of property irrespective of a prior
conviction of its owner in a criminal court.
|
[10] Postopki, ki ne temeljijo na obsodbah, omogočajo
zamrznitev in odvzem premoženjske koristi ne glede na to, ali je bil lastnik v
kazenskem postopku obsojen.
|
|
[11] European Parliament Report on organised crime in the
European Union, adopted on 25 October 2011, Document A7-0333/2011 [provisional
reference].
|
[11] Poročilo Evropskega parlamenta o organiziranem kriminalu v
Evropski uniji, sprejeto 25. oktobra 2011, dokument A7-0333/2011 [začasni
sklic].
|
|
[12] "Proceeds of organised crime - Ensuring that
'crime does not pay'", COM (2008) 766 final of 20.11.2008.
|
[12] „Premoženjske koristi, pridobljene z organiziranim
kriminalom – Zagotovitev, da ,se kriminal ne splača‘“, COM(2008) 766 konč. z
dne 20. novembra 2008.
|
|
[13] OJ L 182 of 05.07.2001.
|
[13] UL L 182, 5.7.2001.
|
|
[14] Value confiscation involves the confiscation of an
amount of money equivalent to the value of the proceeds of a crime.
|
[14] Zaplemba vrednosti vključuje zaplembo denarnega zneska, ki
ustreza vrednosti premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem.
|
|
[15] OJ L 68/49 of 15.3.2005.
|
[15] UL L 68, 15.3.2005, str. 49.
|
|
[16] Extended confiscation involves
the confiscation of assets which go beyond the direct proceeds of a crime so
that there is no need to establish a connection between suspected criminal
assets and a specific criminal conduct.
|
[16] Razširjena zaplemba zajema zaplembo sredstev, ki presega
le neposredno premoženjsko korist, pridobljeno s kaznivim dejanjem, tako da ni
treba ugotavljati povezave med sredstvi, domnevno pridobljenimi s kaznivim
dejanjem, in določenim kaznivim ravnanjem.
|
|
[17] OJ L 196/45 of 2.8.2003.
|
[17] UL L 196, 02.08.2003, str. 45.
|
|
[18] OJ L 328/59 of 24.11.2006.
|
[18] UL L 328, 24.11.2006, str. 59.
|
|
[19] OJ L 332/103 of 18.12.2007.
|
[19] UL L 332, 18.12.2007, str. 103.
|
|
[20] COM(2011) 307, 308 and 309 and C(2011) 3673 final of
6.6.2011.
|
[20] COM (2011), 307, 308 in 309 ter
C(2011) 3673 konč. z dne 6. junija 2011.
|
|
[21] COM(2011) 376 final of 24.6.2011.
|
[21] COM(2011) 376 konč. z dne
24. junija 2011.
|
|
[22] COM(2010)2020 final of
3.3.2010. See also Council Conclusions on Economic
Crisis Prevention and Support for Economic Activity, 23.4.2010 (Council
document 7881/10), point 7d.
|
[22] COM(2010) 2020 konč. z dne
3. marca 2010. Glej tudi
točko 7d Sklepov Sveta o preprečevanju gospodarskih kriz in podpori
gospodarskim dejavnostim, z dne 23. aprila 2010 (dokument Sveta 7881/10).
|
|
[23] (COM(2011) 135 final) of 17.3.2011.
|
[23] COM(2011) 135 konč. z dne
17. marca 2011.
|
|
[24] (COM(2011) 293 final) of 26.5.2011.
|
[24] COM(2011) 293 konč. z dne
26. maja 2011.
|
|
[25] Directive 2005/60/EC of 26 October 2005 on the
prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money
laundering and terrorist financing, OJ L 309/15 of 25.11.2005.
|
[25] Direktiva 2005/60/ES z dne
26. oktobra 2005 o preprečevanju uporabe finančnega sistema za pranje
denarja in financiranje terorizma (UL L 309, 25.11.2005, str. 15).
|
|
[26] This network (CARIN), supported
by the Commission and by Europol, is an international network of asset recovery
practitioners which includes experts (one law enforcement and one judicial
contact point) from over 50 countries and jurisdictions, including 26 EU Member
States. Its objectives are the exchange of best practices and the improvement
of inter-agency cooperation in cross-border asset recovery matters.
|
[26] Ta mreža (CARIN), ki jo podpirata
Komisija in Europol, je mednarodna mreža strokovnih delavcev na področju
odvzema premoženjske koristi, ki vključuje strokovnjake (po eno kontaktno osebo
za kazenski pregon in za pravosodje) iz več kot 50 držav in pravnih sistemov,
tudi iz 26 držav članic EU. Njena
cilja sta izmenjava najboljših praks in izboljšava sodelovanja med
institucijami na področju čezmejnih vprašanj glede odvzema premoženjske
koristi.
|
|
[27] For example the Commission services held several
bilateral meetings with representatives of the FLARE (Freedom, Legality and
Rights in Europe) Network and their associated networks.
|
[27] Na primer, službe Komisije so
organizirale več dvostranskih srečanj s predstavniki mreže FLARE (svoboda,
zakonitost in pravice v Evropi) ter z njo povezanih mrež.
|
|
[28] For example the Centres of Excellence for Asset
Recovery Training (CEART) Seminar and the Eurojust Strategic Seminar held in
2010.
|
[28] Na primer, seminar središč odličnosti
za usposabljanje na področju odvzema premoženjskih koristi (CEART) in strateški
seminar Eurojusta iz leta 2010.
|
|
[29] Notably Recommendation 4 of the FATF Recommendations as
revised in February 2012.
|
[29] Zlasti Priporočilo št. 4
priporočil skupine FATF, kot je bilo spremenjeno februarja 2012.
|
|
[30] Framework Service Contract No JLS/2010/EVAL/FW/001/A1, Study
for an Impact Assessment on a proposal for a new legal framework on the
confiscation and recovery of criminal assets.
|
[30] Okvirna pogodba o storitvah št.
JLS/2010/EVAL/FW/001/A1, Študija za oceno učinka o predlogu novega pravnega
okvira za zaplembo in odvzem sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem, (Study
for an Impact Assessment on a proposal for a new legal framework on the
confiscation and recovery of criminal assets).
|
|
[31] "Assessing the effectiveness of EU Member States'
practices in the identification, tracing, freezing and confiscation of criminal
assets", available at
|
[31] Študija „Ocenjevanje učinkovitosti
praks držav članic EU v zvezi z identifikacijo, sledenjem, zamrznitvijo,
zasegom in zaplembo sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivim dejanjem“, dostopna na:
|
|
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/crime/crime_confiscation_en.htm
|
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/crime/crime_confiscation_en.htm.
|
|
[32] Report from the Commission pursuant to Article 6 of the
Council Framework Decision of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-related
Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (2005/212/JHA), COM(2007) 805 final of
17.12.2007.
|
[32] Poročilo Komisije na podlagi člena 6 Okvirnega sklepa
Sveta z dne 24. februarja 2005 o zaplembi premoženjske koristi, pripomočkov in
premoženja, ki so povezani s kaznivimi dejanji (2005/212/PNZ),
COM(2007) 805 konč. z dne 17. decembra 2007.
|
|
[33] Report from the Commission based on Article 14 of the
Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the
European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, COM(2008) 885 final of
22.12.2008.
|
[33] Poročilo Komisije na podlagi člena 14 Okvirnega sklepa
Sveta 2003/577/PNZ z dne 22. julija 2003 o izvrševanju sklepov o zasegu
premoženja ali dokazov v Evropski uniji, COM(2008) 885 konč. z dne
22. decembra 2008.
|
|
[34] Report from the Commission pursuant to Article 22 of
the Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the
application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders,
COM(2010) 428 final of 23.8.2010.
|
[34] Poročilo Komisije na podlagi člena 22 Okvirnega sklepa Sveta
2006/783/PNZ z dne 6. oktobra 2006 o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja
odredb o zaplembi, COM(2010) 428 konč. z dne 23. avgusta 2010.
|
|
[35] Report from the Commission based on Article 8 of the
Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between
Asset Recovery Offices of the Member States in the field of tracing and
identification of proceeds from, or other property related to, crime, COM(2011)
176 final of 12.4.2011.
|
[35] Poročilo Komisije na podlagi člena 8 Sklepa Sveta
2007/845/PNZ z dne 6. decembra 2007 o sodelovanju med uradi za odvzem
premoženjske koristi držav članic na področju sledenja in identifikacije
premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem, ali drugega premoženja,
povezanega s kaznivimi dejanji, COM(2011) 176 konč. z dne
12. aprila 2011.
|
|
[36] Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on
the fight against organised crime, OJ L 300/42 of 11.11.2008.
|
[36] Okvirni sklep 2008/841/PNZ z dne 24.
oktobra 2008 o boju proti organiziranemu kriminalu (UL L 300, 11.11.2008,
str. 42).
|
|
[37] See references in footnote 2.
|
[37] Glej sklice v opombi 2.
|
|
[38] Judgment Raimondo vs Italy of 22 February 1994.
|
[38] Sodba Raimondo proti Italiji z dne
22. februarja 1994.
|
|
[39] Judgment Walsh v. Director of the Asset Recovery Agency
(United Kingdom) (2005).
|
[39] Sodba Walsh proti direktorju agencije
Asset Recovery Agency (Združeno kraljestvo) (2005).
|
|
[40] Final report of the Italian project on
"Confiscation: Legal issues and international cooperation" developed
within the Criminal Legal Affairs SubGroup (CLASG) of the G8 Roma-Lyon Group.
|
[40] Končno poročilo italijanskega
projekta z naslovom „Zaplemba: pravna
vprašanja in mednarodno sodelovanje“, pripravljeno v podskupini za
kazenskopravne zadeve (CLASG) skupine Lyon-Rim G8.
|
|
[41] OJ C , , p. .
|
[41] UL C, , str..
|
|
[42] OJ C , , p. .
|
[42] UL C, , str..
|
|
[43] "An open and secure Europe
serving and protecting the citizens", Council
document 17024/09, adopted by the European Council on 10/11 December 2009.
|
[43] „Odprta in varna Evropa, ki služi
državljanom in jih varuje“, dokument Sveta 17024/09, ki ga je Evropski svet
sprejel 10. in 11. decembra 2009.
|
|
[44] OJ L 182, 5.7.2001, p. 1.
|
[44] UL L 182, 05.07.2001, str. 1.
|
|
[45] OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 45.
|
[45] UL L 196, 02.08.2003, str. 45.
|
|
[46] OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 49.
|
[46] UL L 68, 15.03.2005, str. 49.
|
|
[47] OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 59.
|
[47] UL L 328, 24.11.2006, str. 59.
|
|
[48] OJ C 195, 25.6.1997, p.2.
|
[48] UL C 195, 25.6.1997, str. 2.
|
|
[49] OJ L 140, 14.6.2000, p.1.
|
[49] UL L 140, 14.06.2000, str. 1.
|
|
[50] OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p.1.
|
[50] UL L 149, 02.06.2001, str. 1.
|
|
[51] OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p.3.
|
[51] UL L 164, 22.6.2002, str. 3.
|
|
[52] OJ L 330, 9.12.2008, p.21.
|
[52] UL L 330, 9.12.2008, str. 21.
|
|
[53] OJ L 182 of 5.7.2001, p.1.
|
[53] UL L 182, 5.7.2001, str. 1.
|
|
[54] OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p.54.
|
[54] UL L 192, 31.7.2003, p.54.
|
|
[55] OJ L 335, 11.11.2004, p.8.
|
[55] UL L 335, 11.11.2004., str. 8.
|
|
[56] OJ L 69, 16.3.2005, p.67.
|
[56] UL L 69, 16.3.2005, str. 67.
|
|
[57] OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p.42.
|
[57] UL L 300, 11.11.2008, str. 42.
|
|
[58] OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p.1.
|
[58] UL L 101, 15.4.2011, str. 1.
|
|
[59] OJ L 335, 17.12.2001, p. 1.
|
[59] UL L 335, 17. 12. 2001, str. 1.
|