Framework decision 2009/829 - Application, between Member States of the EU, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

Contents

  1. Current status
  2. Key information
  3. Key dates
  4. Legislative text
  5. Original proposal
  6. Sources and disclaimer
  7. Full version
  8. EU Monitor

1.

Current status

This framework decision has been published on November 11, 2009, entered into force on December  1, 2009 and should have been implemented in national regulation on December  1, 2012 at the latest.

2.

Key information

official title

Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention
 
Legal instrument Framework decision
Number legal act Framework decision 2009/829
Original proposal COM(2006)468 EN
CELEX number33 32009F0829

3.

Key dates

Document 23-10-2009
Publication in Official Journal 11-11-2009; OJ L 294, 11.11.2009,Special edition in Croatian: Chapter 19 Volume 006
Effect 01-12-2009; Entry into force Date pub. + 20 See Art 29
End of validity 31-12-9999
Transposition 01-12-2012; At the latest

4.

Legislative text

11.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 294/20
 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2009/829/JHA

of 23 October 2009

on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(1)(a) and (c) and Article 34(2)(b) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

 

(1)

The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.
 

(2)

According to the Conclusions of the European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, and in particular point 36 thereof, the principle of mutual recognition should apply to pre-trial orders. The programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters addresses mutual recognition of supervision measures in its measure 10.
 

(3)

The measures provided for in this Framework Decision should aim at enhancing the protection of the general public through enabling a person resident in one Member State, but subject to criminal proceedings in a second Member State, to be supervised by the authorities in the State in which he or she is resident whilst awaiting trial. As a consequence, the present Framework Decision has as its objective the monitoring of a defendants’ movements in the light of the overriding objective of protecting the general public and the risk posed to the public by the existing regime, which provides only two alternatives: provisional detention or unsupervised movement. The measures will therefore give further effect to the right of law-abiding citizens to live in safety and security.
 

(4)

The measures provided for in this Framework Decision should also aim at enhancing the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence in the European Union and at ensuring cooperation between Member States when a person is subject to obligations or supervision pending a court decision. As a consequence, the present Framework Decision has as its objective the promotion, where appropriate, of the use of non-custodial measures as an alternative to provisional detention, even where, according to the law of the Member State concerned, a provisional detention could not be imposed ab initio.
 

(5)

As regards the detention of persons subject to criminal proceedings, there is a risk of different treatment between those who are resident in the trial state and those who are not: a non-resident risks being remanded in custody pending trial even where, in similar circumstances, a resident would not. In a common European area of justice without internal borders, it is necessary to take action to ensure that a person subject to criminal proceedings who is not resident in the trial state is not treated any differently from a person subject to criminal proceedings who is so resident.
 

(6)

The certificate, which should be forwarded together with the decision on supervision measures to the competent authority of the executing State, should specify the address where the person concerned will stay in the executing State, as well as any other relevant information which might facilitate the monitoring of the supervision measures in the executing State.
 

(7)

The competent authority in the executing State should inform the competent authority in the issuing State of the maximum length of time, if any, during which the supervision measures could be monitored in the executing State. In Member States in which the supervision measures have to be periodically renewed, this maximum length of time has to be understood as the total length of time...


More

This text has been adopted from EUR-Lex.

5.

Original proposal

 

6.

Sources and disclaimer

For further information you may want to consult the following sources that have been used to compile this dossier:

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.

 

7.

Full version

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.

8.

EU Monitor

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.

  • 1. 
    OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

     
  • 2. 
    COM(2005) 184 final, p. 27.

     
  • 3. 
    OJ C 198, 12.8.2005, p. 1 (p. 18, paragraph g).

     
  • 4. 
    OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

     
  • 5. 
    COM(2004) 328 final.

     
  • 6. 
    COM(2004) 562 final.

     
  • 7. 
    SEC(2004) 1046.

     
  • 8. 
    Available at

     
  • 9. 
    Article 10 of the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between Member States (OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p. 3) already provides for the hearing of evidence by videoconferencing means.

     
  • 10. 
    OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

     
  • 11. 
    OJ C XXX E, 00.00.0000, p. 000.

     
  • 12. 
    Opinion delivered on x xxxxx 0000 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

     
  • 13. 
    OJ L 190 of 18.7.2002, p. 1.

     
  • 14. 
    COM(2005) 184 final, p. 27.

     
  • 15. 
    This order must be written in or translated into the official language or one of the official languages of the executing Member State, or any other languages accepted by that State.

     
  • 16. 
    This report must be written in or translated into the official language or one of the official languages of the executing Member State, or any other languages accepted by that State.

     
  • 17. 
    OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

     
  • 18. 
    COM(2005) 184 final, p. 27.

     
  • 19. 
    OJ C 198, 12.8.2005, p. 1 (p. 18, paragraph g).

     
  • 20. 
    OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

     
  • 21. 
    COM(2004) 328 final.

     
  • 22. 
    COM(2004) 562 final.

     
  • 23. 
    SEC(2004) 1046.

     
  • 24. 
    Available at

     
  • 25. 
    Article 10 of the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between Member States (OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p.

    3) already provides for the hearing of evidence by videoconferencing means.

     
  • 26. 
    OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

     
  • 27. 
    OJ C XXX E, 00.00.0000, p. 000.

     
  • 28. 
    Opinion delivered on x xxxxx 0000 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

     
  • 29. 
    OJ L 190 of 18.7.2002, p. 1.

     
  • 30. 
    COM(2005) 184 final, p. 27.

     
  • 31. 
    This order must be written in or translated into the official language or one of the official languages of the executing Member State, or any other languages accepted by that State.

     
  • 32. 
    This report must be written in or translated into the official language or one of the official languages of the executing Member State, or any other languages accepted by that State.

     
  • 33. 
    Deze databank van de Europese Unie biedt de mogelijkheid de actuele werkzaamheden (workflow) van de Europese instellingen (Europees Parlement, Raad, ESC, Comité van de Regio's, Europese Centrale Bank, Hof van Justitie enz.) te volgen. EURlex volgt alle voorstellen (zoals wetgevende en begrotingsdossiers) en mededelingen van de Commissie, vanaf het moment dat ze aan de Raad of het Europees Parlement worden voorgelegd.
     
  • 34. 
    EUR-lex provides an overview of the proposal, amendments, citations and legality.