5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/116

A.

whereas the administration of justice falls within the national competences of the Member States,

B.

whereas, with a view to the Treaty of Lisbon, it should be stressed that, once in force, it would widen EU competences in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and would introduce the co-decision law-making process in this area by abolishing the pillar system,

C.

whereas the Hague Programme, like the Tampere Programme, set the creation of a European Area for Justice as a priority and stressed that the strengthening of justice should pass through confidence-building and mutual trust, the implementation of mutual recognition programmes, the development of equivalent standards for procedural rights in criminal proceedings, the approximation of laws - in order to prevent criminals from benefiting from differences in judicial systems and in order to ensure that citizens are protected regardless of where they are in the EU - and with a view to furthering the development of Eurojust,

D.

whereas, according to the Commission Report of 2 July 2008 on Implementation of the Hague Programme for 2007 (COM(2008)0373), the level of achievement in judicial cooperation in criminal matters has been rather low, with policy blockage and delays which are reflected in the diminishing number of instruments adopted, while satisfactory developments have been registered in other fields, such as cooperation in civil matters, border management, legal and illegal migration, and asylum policies,

E.

whereas criminal proceedings have relevant and numerous implications in term of the fundamental freedoms of both victims of crime and suspects and defendants,

F.

whereas the protection of rights such as the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defence, the rights of victims of crime, the ne bis in idem principle and minimum procedural safeguards in pre-trial detention are primarily essential in criminal proceedings,

G.

whereas day-to-day judicial cooperation in criminal matters is still based on mutual assistance instruments such as the 2000 Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters,

H.

whereas, within the boundaries of the aims and principles of European law, the mutual recognition principle implies that when a decision has been handed down by a competent judicial authority in one Member State, the decision becomes fully and directly effective throughout the territory of the Union, and the judicial authorities in the Member States in the territory of which the decision may be enforced assist in the enforcement of the decision as if it were a decision handed down by a competent authority in that Member State, unless the instrument under which it is implemented places limits on its execution,

I.

whereas the implementation of the mutual recognition principle, which has been the cornerstone of judicial cooperation since the Tampere European Council, is far from having been satisfactorily achieved, and needs to be accompanied by a uniform set of procedural guarantees and safeguards,

J.

whereas where it is implemented, as is the case with the European Arrest Warrant, the mutual recognition principle has proved to have a great added value for judicial cooperation in the European Union,

K.

whereas, to be fully effective, the mutual recognition principle largely depends on the creation of a common European judicial culture based on mutual trust, common principles, cooperation and a certain level of harmonisation - for instance, in the definition of certain crimes and in the sanctions - and by a genuine protection of fundamental rights, notably with regard to procedural rights, minimum standards for conditions and review of detention, prisoners’ rights and accessible mechanisms of redress for individuals,

L.

whereas training of judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and others involved in the administration of justice plays a key role in building mutual trust and developing a common European judicial culture, while at the same time enhancing the right balance between the interests of the public prosecution and those of the defence and to ensure continuity and effective defence in cross-border cases,

M.

whereas many steps forward have been taken in the area of judicial training, in particular thanks to the contribution offered by the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) and its activities,

N.

whereas, despite the important results achieved so far, the role of the EJTN has been limited by constraints related to its organisational structure and by the lack of sufficient resources,

O.

whereas - given the above-mentioned situation - judicial authorities are not currently given the training tools they need to properly apply EU legislation, and only a very small part of the judiciary has access to EU-focused judicial training,

P.

whereas future action towards the development of the EU criminal justice area cannot but be based on an objective, impartial, transparent, accurate and continuous monitoring of the implementation of EU policies and legal instruments as well as of the quality and efficiency of justice in the Member States,

Q.

whereas no comprehensive, constant and clear monitoring of EU policies in the field of criminal justice, or of the quality and efficiency of justice, is currently in place within the EU,

R.

whereas such monitoring would be fundamental for the ‘EU decision-makers’ when conceiving the most appropriate legislative actions while at the same time enhancing mutual trust in each other’s judicial systems,

S.

whereas that evaluation system should take stock of existing evaluation systems without duplicating effort or results, and should give an active role to Parliament,

T.

whereas the newly established ‘Justice Forum’ might make an important contribution to the ex-ante evaluation stage of EU legislative initiatives,

U.

whereas, in order to ensure coherence and consistency in EU action while at the same time safeguarding fundamental rights, a public consultation process through the appropriate procedures, including impact assessments, should take place before proposals and initiatives for the adoption of EU legislative instruments are tabled by the Commission or the Member States,

V.

whereas a constant exchange of information, practices and experience among judicial authorities in the Member States makes a fundamental contribution to the development of an environment built on mutual trust, as the remarkable results achieved with the exchange programme for judicial authorities show,

W.

whereas an adequate overall data protection regime is still lacking in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and in its absence the rights of data subjects need to be carefully regulated in each individual legislative instrument,

X.

whereas, in order to be effective, an EU criminal justice area must take advantage of new technologies whilst respecting fundamental rights, and use internet tools in the implementation of EU policies as well as in the dissemination and discussion of information and proposals,

Y.

whereas the role of national judiciaries is becoming more and more relevant in fighting trans-national crime and, at the same time, in protecting fundamental rights and freedoms,

Z.

whereas coordination bodies such as Eurojust have been shown to contribute a real added value and their action against trans-national crime has expanded remarkably despite the fact that their powers are still too limited and some Member States have proved reluctant to share information in this context,

AA.

whereas coordination for defence lawyers is lacking and should therefore be supported and endorsed at EU level,

AB.

whereas mafias and organised crime in general have become a transnational phenomenon having a social, cultural, economic and political impact on Member States and neighbouring countries, needing to be combated also at the social level, in cooperation with civil society and democratic institutions,

1.

Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

2.

Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission.