(4)

There should be direct consultations between competent authorities of the Member States with the aim of achieving a consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from parallel proceedings and avoiding waste of time and resources of the competent authorities concerned. Such effective solution could notablyconsist in the concentration of the criminal proceedings in one Member State, for example through the transfer of criminal proceedings. It could also consist in any other step allowing efficient and reasonable handling of those proceedings, including concerning the allocation in time, for example through a referral of the case to Eurojust when the competent authorities are not able to reach consensus . In this respect, specific attention should be paid to the issue of gathering the evidence which can be influenced by the parallel proceedings being conducted.

(4)

There should be direct consultations between competent authorities of the Member States with the aim of achieving a consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from parallel proceedings and avoiding waste of time and resources of the competent authorities concerned. Such effective solution could notablyconsist in the concentration of the criminal proceedings in one Member State, for example through the transfer of criminal proceedings. It could also consist in any other step allowing efficient and reasonable handling of those proceedings, including concerning the allocation in time. In this respect, specific attention should be paid to the issue of gathering the evidence which can be influenced by the parallel proceedings being conducted.

(7)

A competent authority which has been contacted by a competent authority of another Member State should have a general obligation to reply to the request submitted. The contacting authority is encouraged to set a deadline within which the contacted authority should respond, if possible. The specific situation of a person deprived of liberty should be fully taken into account by the competent authorities throughout the procedure of taking contact.

(7)

A competent authority which has been contacted by a competent authority of another Member State should reply to the request submitted by the deadline set . The specific situation of a person deprived of liberty should be fully taken into account by the competent authorities throughout the procedure of taking contact.

(8)

Direct contact between competent authorities should be the leading principle of cooperation established under this Framework Decision. Member States should have discretion to decide which authorities are competent to act in accordance with this Framework Decision, in compliance with the principle of national procedural autonomy, provided that such authorities have competence to intervene and decide accordingly with its provisions.

(8)

Direct contact between competent authorities and the involvement of Eurojust should be the leading principles of cooperation established under this Framework Decision.

(9)

When striving to reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from parallel proceedings being conducted in two or more Member States, the competent authorities should take into account that each case is specific and give consideration to all its facts and merits. In order to reach consensus, the competent authorities should consider relevant criteria, which may include those set out in the Guidelines which were published in the Eurojust Annual Report 2003 and which were drawn up for the needs of practitioners, and take into account for example the place where the major part of the criminality occurred, the place where the majority of the loss was sustained, the location of the suspected or accused person and possibilities for securing its surrender or extradition to other jurisdictions, the nationality or residence of the suspected or accused person, significant interests of the suspected or accused person, significant interests of victims and witnesses, the admissibility of evidence or any delays that may occur.

(9)

When striving to reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from parallel proceedings being conducted in two or more Member States, the competent authorities should take into account that each case is specific and give consideration to all its facts and merits.

(16)

This Framework Decision should not lead to undue bureaucracy in cases where for the problems addressed more suitable options are readily available. Thus in situations where more flexible instruments or arrangements are in place between Member States, those should prevail over this Framework Decision.

(16)

This Framework Decision should not lead to undue bureaucracy in cases where for the problems addressed more suitable options are readily available. Thus in situations where more flexible instruments or arrangements are in place between Member States, those should prevail over this Framework Decision provided that they do not lower the protection afforded to the suspected or accused person .

(18)

Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters should apply to the processing of personal data exchanged under this Framework Decision.

(18)

Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters should apply to the processing of personal data exchanged under this Framework Decision. The transmission of information relating to so-called racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief and sexual orientation is expressly prohibited unless strictly necessary for the prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in the application of this Framework Decision.

(20)

This Framework Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

(20)

This Framework Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union with particular regard to Article 50 thereof ,

(b)

‘competent authority’ means a judicial authority or another authority, which is competent, under the law of its Member State, to carry out the acts envisaged by Article 2(1) of this Framework Decision;

(b)

‘competent authority’ means a judge, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor or another judicial authority, which is competent, under the law of its Member State, to carry out the acts envisaged by Article 2(1) of this Framework Decision;

(c)

all relevant details about the identity of the suspected or accused person and about the victims, if applicable;

(c)

name, nationality, date of birth and address of the suspected or accused person and of the victims, if applicable, and other details that are relevant where there is a suspicion that the identity of the suspected or accused person is false ;

—

the place where the major part of the crime was committed,

—

the place where the major part of the loss was sustained,

—

the location of the suspected or accused person and the possibilities for securing his or her surrender or extradition to another jurisdiction,

—

the nationality or residence of the suspected or accused person,

—

any significant interests of the suspected or accused person,

—

any significant interests of victims and witnesses,

—

the admissibility of evidence or

—

any delays that may occur.

—

be notified of exchanges of information and consultations between authorities of Member States and between authorities of a Member State and Eurojust, as well as of solutions chosen or failure to reach agreement under this Framework Decision, including of actors involved, contents and reasons;

—

have a right to make representations as to the best placed jurisdiction before a solution is chosen;

—

have a right to appeal against any decision taken in accordance with Article 10(1) or, in case of failure to reach agreement, to have it re-examined.