Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders

What it is

PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council. BACKGROUND: after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, confiscation was given strategic priority at EU level as an effective instrument to fight organised crime. Directive 2014/42/EU establishes common minimum rules for the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Nathalie GRIESBECK (ALDE, FR) on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. The committee recommended that the European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure should amend the Commission proposal as follows. Respect for fundamental rights : this Regulation is without prejudice to the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the TEU and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right of defence, the right to a fair trial and the right to property. Freezing and confiscation decisions : Members proposed to reconcile the procedures concerning the mutual recognition of freezing orders and the mutual recognition of confiscation orders or to harmonise this new instrument with other existing European legislative instruments in this area, for example by specifying that: (i) a State shall accept to receive freezing or confiscation orders in at least one other language than its national language; (ii) both decisions shall each be accompanied by a certificate; (iii) the non bis in idem principle shall be respected. Mandatory and optional grounds for non-recognition and non-execution of a freezing or confiscation order : Members proposed the insertion of a clause of non-recognition and non-execution of freezing or confiscation orders, based on the failure to observe fundamental rights. They also suggested making non-recognition and non-enforcement compulsory in the event that the confiscation order relates to a specific item of property which is not the property of the natural or legal person against whom the confiscation order was made in the issuing Member state or of any other natural or legal person who was a party to the proceedings in the issuing State. On the other hand, the executing authority may decide not to recognise and not to execute confiscation orders if the standard certificate for issuing a confiscation order is incomplete, manifestly incorrect or manifestly does not correspond to the confiscation order or if the conduct on which the confiscation order is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing State. Procedures for recognition of freezing and confiscation orders : Members suggested improving the efficiency and speed of these procedures by, inter alia : facilitated procedures for forwarding decisions; a stepped-up role for central national…

Frequently asked