31ST REPORT: EUROPEAN SUPERVISION ORDER
Letter from Margot Wallström, Vice-President
of the European Commission to the Chairman
Thank you for your opinion on the European Commission's
Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European supervision
order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the European
Union (COM(2006) 468) dated 25 July 2007.
I enclose the Commission's response. I hope
you will find this a valuable contribution to your own deliberations.
I look forward to developing our policy dialogue
further in the future.
8 January 2008
COMMISSION RESPONSE
The European Commission thanks the EU Committee
of the House of Lords for its report of 25 July 2007 on the aforementioned
proposal.
The EU Committee of the House of Lords considers
that the European supervision order (ESO), whose aim is to enhance
the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence, is a welcome
measure. The European Commission's proposal addresses a serious
issue affecting the liberty of the individual. It has the potential
to reduce hardship for some thousands of EU citizens and is a
proposal which, the EU Committee believes, deserves prompt attention
from Member States. However, the Committee is of the opinion that
the ESO needs to be improved in a number of respects if it is
to be workable (paragraphs 18-19 of the aforementioned report).
The EU Committee of the House of Lords has analysed
the text of the ESO in great detail, has drawn a number of conclusions[13]
and has made suggestions as to how the ESO could be improved.
The European Commission agrees, to a large extent,
with the House of Lords EU committee's analysis.
As regards the choice between the ESO and Eurobail,
the EU Committee prefers the ESO, which, in its view, might be
usefully supplemented by allowing a greater role for the executing
State than is currently envisaged in the ESO. The European Commission
would like to emphasise that it considers essential that it be
the issuing authority that has the final control over the pre-trial
procedure as it is this authority that has the responsibility
for the preliminary investigations and the question whether there
is sufficient evidence to bring charges against the suspect. This
aspect is also important for the confidence that the issuing authority
will have in the ESO and finally whether it will be used on a
larger scale in the future. In the long run, this will be for
the benefit for the use of non-custodial supervision measures
and their transfer to the home State of the suspects.
The report of the EU Committee contains further
many useful comments on the possibilities for the executing State
to take action against a suspect who is breaching his or her obligations.
The European Commission welcomes the EU Committee's constructive
analysis on all aspects of the proposal which clearly merits consideration.
This meticulous analysis will no doubt prove useful in the discussions
in Council under the Portuguese Presidency.
As regards the return of the suspected person
to the issuing authority, there have been discussions among Member
States about whether the return mechanism should be linked to
the procedures under the Framework Decision on the European arrest
warrant (EAW). The EU Committee has noted that this could be very
difficult as the EAW only applies in the case of offences punishable
by a minimum of one year's imprisonment whereas it is envisaged
that the ESO would also be available for less serious offences.
The European Commission also notes that the grounds for refusal
of the EAW and of the ESO are not the same and that they would
not be compatible.
Finally, the time limits in Articles 17(2) and
17(3) of the EAW do not seem to be compatible with a return mechanism
adapted for the ESO, which aims to reduce pre-trial detention.Article
17(3) EAW allows explicitly that the final decision on the execution
of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period
of 60 days after the arrest of the requested person. Even if Article
12 EAW allows that a person may be released provisionally at any
time in conformity with the domestic law of the executing Member
State, provided that the competent authority of the said Member
State takes all measures it deems necessary to prevent the person
absconding, it is not obvious that a return mechanism linked to
the EAW is the best possible solution for the ESO. Therefore,
the European Commission would like to see a separate return mechanism.
13 In particular in paragraphs 48, 70, 76,84, 95-98,
102, 105, 111, 115, 122, 125, 129, 131, 133, 136, 144, 147, 151,
158, 166-168, 172, 179 and 182. Back
|
