Framework decision 2009/948 - Prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
Contents
official title
Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedingsLegal instrument | Framework decision |
---|---|
Number legal act | Framework decision 2009/948 |
CELEX number i | 32009F0948 |
Document | 30-11-2009 |
---|---|
Publication in Official Journal | 15-12-2009; Special edition in Croatian: Chapter 19 Volume 006,OJ L 328, 15.12.2009 |
Effect | 15-12-2009; Entry into force Date pub. See Art 18 |
End of validity | 31-12-9999 |
Transposition | 15-06-2012; At the latest |
15.12.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 328/42 |
COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2009/948/JHA
of 30 November 2009
on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(1)(c) and (d) and Article 34(2)(b) thereof,
Having regard to the initiative of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and of the Kingdom of Sweden,
Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament,
Whereas:
(1) |
The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice. |
(2) |
The Hague Programme (1) on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, which was approved by the European Council at its meeting on 4 and 5 November 2004, requires Member States to consider legislation on conflicts of jurisdiction, with a view to increasing the efficiency of prosecutions while guaranteeing the proper administration of justice, so as to complete the comprehensive programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. |
(3) |
The measures provided for in this Framework Decision should aim to prevent situations where the same person is subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different Member States in respect of the same facts, which might lead to the final disposal of those proceedings in two or more Member States. The Framework Decision therefore seeks to prevent an infringement of the principle of ‘ne bis in idem’, as set out in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (2) as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities. |
(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 notably consist 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. |
(5) |
When a competent authority in a Member State has reasonable grounds to believe that parallel criminal proceedings are being conducted in another Member State in respect of the same facts involving the same person, which could lead to the final disposal of those proceedings in two or more Member States, it should contact the competent authority of that other Member State. The question whether or not reasonable grounds exist should be examined solely by the contacting authority. Reasonable grounds could, inter alia, include cases where a suspected or accused person invokes, while giving details, that he is subject to parallel criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts in another Member State, or in case a relevant request for mutual legal assistance by a competent authority in another Member State reveals the possible existence of such parallel criminal proceedings, or in case a police authority... |
More
This text has been adopted from EUR-Lex.
This dossier is compiled each night drawing from aforementioned sources through automated processes. We have invested a great deal in optimising the programming underlying these processes. However, we cannot guarantee the sources we draw our information from nor the resulting dossier are without fault.
This page is also available in a full version containing the summary of legislation, the legal context, de Europese rechtsgrond, other dossiers related to the dossier at hand, the related cases of the European Court of Justice and finally consultations relevant to the dossier at hand.
The full version is available for registered users of the EU Monitor by ANP and PDC Informatie Architectuur.
The EU Monitor enables its users to keep track of the European process of lawmaking, focusing on the relevant dossiers. It automatically signals developments in your chosen topics of interest. Apologies to unregistered users, we can no longer add new users.This service will discontinue in the near future.