We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCharles Gonzales
Modified over 2 years ago
The framework decision on mutual recognition of custodial sentences Estella Baker
Contents Background Framework decision on custodial sentences Contentious issues © Estella Baker
Background Mutual recognition programme, 2001 Punishment package FWD 2005/214/JHA on financial penalties FWD 2006/783/JHA on confiscation orders FWD 2008/909/JHA on custodial sentences FWD 2008/947/JHA on probation & alternative sanctions Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, 1983 & Additional Protocol of 1997 © Estella Baker
The Framework Decision Scheme © Estella Baker
Who does it cover? Natural persons only! Sentenced to custody/deprivation of liberty Determinate or indeterminate Through criminal proceedings © Estella Baker
The purpose… to establish the rules under which a Member State, with a view to facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, is to recognise a judgment and enforce the sentence. Article 3(1) See also Articles 4(2), 4(4) © Estella Baker
How does the scheme work? Sentence imposed in issuing state [IS] Judgment & certificate sent to executing state [ES] Decision regarding recognition & enforcement by ES Sentenced person transferred (if necessary) Sentence enforced according to law of ES © Estella Baker
Criteria for transfer Sentenced person in IS or ES S/he has consented, if required Identification of ES: Member State of nationality where sentenced person lives or to which will be deported post-sentence Or any other consenting MS ES satisfied enforcement would serve purpose of facilitating social rehabilitation © Estella Baker
When is consent not needed? Where proposed transfer is to Member State of nationality where sentenced person lives or to which s/he will be deported post-sentence Or to Member State to which s/he has fled or returned in view of criminal proceedings in IS But has opportunity to state opinion, which must be transmitted to ES, in all cases where present in IS © Estella Baker
When can the ES decline enforcement? Would not serve purpose of facilitating social rehabilitation & successful reintegration (Article 4(4)) The list in Article 9: note paras (d), (h), (j), (k) © Estella Baker
Accountability to the IS The specialty rule (Article 18) Amnesty, pardon, review of judgment (Article 19) Early & conditional release (Article 17) Impossibility, partial enforcement, adaptation, escape (Article 21) © Estella Baker
Implementation & its consequences Implementation deadline: Dec Consequences with respect to existing instruments Transitional arrangements (what happened on Dec 5?!) © Estella Baker
Domestic implementation Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (as amended) CJEU access The Transitional Protocol © Estella Baker
Contentious issues Mutual recognition issues Consent Citizenship & integration Directive 2004/38, Article 28 Case C-145/09 Tsakouridis Case C-348/09 PI (AGs Opinion of 6 March, 2012) See also Case C-66/08 Kozlowski (EAW) Prison conditions & fundamental rights © Estella Baker
Thank you for listening! © Estella Baker
European Investigation Order Background and Context Steve Peers April 7, 2014.
EUROPEAN INITIATIVES IN THE FIELD OF MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS AND MUTUAL RECOGNITION NEW LEGAL MECHANISM FOR CREATING AN AREA OF FREEDOM,
THE POSITIVES AND NEGATIVES OF CITIZENSHIP Estella Baker
RP-SPAIN TREATY on Transfer of Sentenced Persons.
Luca De Matteis Madrid, 15 March Outline 1. Introduction: the situation in Member States before the Directive 2. The “constitutional” boundaries.
The International Instruments Relevant to Juvenile Justice Administration.
The Monti II Regulation: reversing ECJ Decisions? Professor Tonia Novitz University of Bristol.
Block 2 – Local Government Part 1 – Local Government Chapter 5 (Governance) Chapter 7 (Standards) and Chapter 8 (Pay Accountability) 1.
TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS AGREEMENT (TSPA). ORDER OF PRESENTATION I. BACKGROUND OF THE TREATY II.SALIENT PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY III. ISSUES/CONCERNS.
Disability Policies and Programmes: How does Northern Ireland Measure Up? An Update.
1 THE CERTIFYING AUTHORITY How the Certifying Authority can deliver assurance? How the Certifying Authority can deliver assurance? Adérito Pinto European.
Life sentence in Finland and other Nordic Countries Vital and fatal questions Tallinn Ulla Mohell Counsellor of Legislation Ministry of Justice.
Introduction to EU Law & the European Legal Order 1 EU Law & Homelessness Lewisham Homelessness Forum Training 5 th February 2014 Rebecca Collins, Project.
NGOS AND EU LITIGATION: WHAT CAN BE CHALLENGED? Kate Cook, Matrix.
Poland Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation Financial Limits And Insurance Questionnaire 2 Ratification Krystyna Panek - Gondek Chief Inspectorate.
EU human rights policy and Japan Paul Bacon Waseda University Deputy Director, EUIJ Waseda
Basel Convention Secretariat United Nations Environmental Programme ___________________________________ Roles and Responsibilities under the Protocol Laura.
International forum on eNotarization and eApostilles The impact of e-technology on notarial acts: legal and technical possibilities and limits -relevance.
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol.
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA Bulgaria and the Basel protocol on liability and compensation.
Rita Pereira Sara Garcia. Mediation A form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) A way of resolving disputes between two or more parties (which yields.
Policy Analysis and Law Reform. Reform by law States obligation under the CRC (article 4) States parties shall adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative,
European Commission Justice Date | # EQUS Conference, June 2011 Building an EU Consensus for minimum quality standards in drug demand reduction -
Basel Protocol Ratification Ms. Alena MÁTEJOVÁ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic Warsaw, January 2006.
IMPACT Principles and Elements for National Legislation Presented by: Chair, Working Group on Regulatory Implementation, on behalf of Chair, Working Group.
Amsterdam Center for International Law (ACIL) and Amsterdam Center for Law & Economics (ACLE) The Normative Community Constraints on National Enforcement.
Universiteitstraat 4, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium T +32 (0) , F +32 (0) Prof. Dr. G. Vermeulen – Harmonisation.
RECENT CHANGES IN FEDERAL CHILD WELFARE LEGISLATION Presentation for the State Liaison Officers May 17, 2007 Policy Division, Childrens Bureau Administration.
Briefing to the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development 11 February
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.