www.coe.int/tcj


 
Council of Europe standards

  Country information
 
Tools for implementation
  Special sessions

 


 
Council of Europe standards
  Country information
 
Tools for implementation
  Special sessions

 


 
Council of Europe standards
  Country information
 
Tools for implementation
  Special sessions

 


  Applicable instruments

  Recent publications
  Other relevant publications



  Case law of the
European Court of
Human Rights
 

 


 
International Courts
  Council of Europe
  European Union
  United Nations
  Other Organisations
  National Websites

 


 
Committees

 


 
Contact Us

 

http://www.coe.int/tcj/


Strasbourg, 29/01/2007

PC-OC Mod (2007) 03

COMITTEE OF EXPERTS
ON THE OPERATION OF EUROPEAN CONVENTIONS
ON CO-OPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

3rd meeting of the restricted Group of experts on international co-operation (PC-OC Mod)

Strasbourg, 22-23 January 2007

Meeting report

Summary: PC-OC identified the following proposals to be submitted to the CDPC:

I- It requests the CDPC to take note and support the following proposals for practical measures aiming at facilitating and improving co-operation in criminal matters:

    - the setting-up of a network of national single points of contact
    - the setting up of an electronic database on national procedures
    - development of CoE publications, web site and newsletter

II- It requests the CDPC to be mandated to draft normative instruments in the field of extradition on:

    - simplified extradition, when the person consents to his/her surrender
    - the application of the rule of specialty
    - matters related to channels and means of communication, time limits and language
    - compensation and return issues
    - lapse of time

III- It discussed three matters which will need further discussion before being finalised:

    - the limitation of the use of the political exception clause
    - concurrent requests
    - procedural safeguards

IV- It did not discussed, by lack of time, either:

    - transversal issues: such as the friendly settlement of disputes or reservations
    - longer term issues, such as the extradition of nationals or ne bis in idem matters
    - issues pertaining to other conventions, such as mutual assistance, transfer of prisoners or transmission of criminal proceedings.

The Group will hold its next meeting on 3-4 May 2007. The meeting will be opened to all PC-OC members, on their own expenses. It will aim at finalising the proposals to the CDPC (plenary in June 2007). In preparation of the meeting, participants are invited to prepare

    - their preliminary observations on the follow-up to be given to the conclusions adopted in Moscow by the Ministers of Justice and of the Interior and in particular, its para 11, following an initiative by the Greek Minister of Justice to draft a 2nd additional protocol to the transfer convention.
    - elements relating to the ratification and the application of the convention on transmission of criminal proceedings (ETS 073).

The draft agenda was adopted (Appendix I to this report).

4.1 Practical measures

4.1.2 Database

4.2 Proposals for normative developments

* * *

APPENDIX I

Strasbourg, 04/10/2006

PC-OC Mod (2006) OJ 2

COMITTEE OF EXPERTS
ON THE OPERATION OF EUROPEAN CONVENTIONS
ON CO-OPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
(PC-OC)

3rd meeting of the restricted Group of experts on international co-operation
(PC-OC Mod)

Strasbourg, 22-23 /01/2007– Room /Salle 17

Agenda

4.1 Practical measures / mesures pratiques

4.2 Proposals for normative developments / propositions de développements normatifs

4.2.2 Mutual assistance / Entraide judiciaire

4.2.3 Transfer of sentenced persons / Transfèrement des personnes condamnées

4.2.4 Transversal or other issues:

* * *

APPENDIX II

Draft proposals of the PC-OC to the CDPC as discussed and agreed by the
Restricted Group of experts on international co-operation (PC-OC Mod)
at their 3rd meeting, Strasbourg, 22-23 January 2007

Proposals for practical measures

Proposal N°1 On the setting up of a Network of single points of contacts

Background

The PC-OC, committee of experts on the operation of European conventions on international co-operation in criminal matters, fulfils an essential role in promoting networking among national authorities in charge of judicial co-operation. In addition, regional and multilateral activities conducted under the CoE programmes of assistance further promote networking among practitioners and judicial actors.

Proposal

The efficiency of international co-operation could be improved through better communication among national authorities in charge of such co-operation. It is therefore proposed that the Council of Europe sets up a network of national points of contacts from States party to the CoE conventions.

The existing “list of national officials in charge of international co-operation” set up by the PC-OC (PC-OC Inf 6) and comprising of names and contact details of civil servants from national central authority/ies dealing with co-operation requests constitutes a basis for the development of such a network. The list could however be simplified by reducing the number of persons presented by each State to a maximum of 2 to 3 (a single point of contact –PoC – and one or two substitutes), with their complete contact details, including e-mails (and, where available, the contacts of the person(s) to be reached beyond the working hours).

Role of contact persons

The contact person is expected to:

Requirements

The contact persons should have

Accessibility of names and data

The list of names of persons of contact (PoC) would be available among all persons composing the network and to PC-OC members.

It could be accessible through the database to be set up by the PC-OC3.

No access should be given to the list of names outside members of the list, PC-OC members and judicial authorities, as defined by each State Party to the conventions. Access would be provided through a password.

Activities of the network

Depending on the availability of financial resources, the network could occasionally meet in order to enhance personal contacts among the network’s members and discuss matters related to the efficiency of the network’s work (exchange of best practice, code of conduct, substantial matters, etc).

Action requested by the CDPC: The PC-OC invites the CDPC to invite the Committee of Ministers to:
- take note and support the proposal to setting up a network of national single points of contact on co-operation in the criminal field;
- instruct the CDPC to set-up this network and to report, following its session in 2008, to the Committee of Ministers on this matter.

Proposal N°2 On the setting up of an Electronic database

Background

The web site of the PC-OC currently presents information related to national procedures on judicial co-operation. This information is however neither comprehensive, nor overall consistent or systematically reviewed and updated. As a consequence, practitioners who need guidance on judicial co-operation with specific countries, often lack accurate information.

Access to relevant and updated information on the procedure applicable in each State party to the respective conventions is essential for an efficient preparation and execution of co-operation requests.

Proposal

The PC-OC suggests that the Council of Europe sets up and hosts an electronic database on national procedures applicable to co-operation in the criminal field. CoE would be responsible for the management and updating of the database.

The database should be as simple as possible (“light weight database”) and should reply to basic questions related to co-operation with the other States parties to the CoE conventions. Extradition, mutual assistance and transfer of sentenced persons will be contemplated in a first step.

Content of the database

The elements or data to be inserted would include with regard to extradition, for each State:

[The following are proposals from one expert, which have not yet been discussed by the Group:
The elements or data to be inserted would include with regard to mutual legal assistance, for each State:

The elements or data to be inserted would include with regard to the transfer of sentenced persons, for each State:

The database could offer a link to the details of the person of contact (see above, proposal n°1), member of the network.
A “guide” for practitioners could introduce the database and would for instance stress the need for practitioners to consult the lists of signatures and ratifications as well as the declarations and reservations of any convention, etc .

Management of the database

The database would be hosted on the CoE web site. The CoE will provide the software.

The data could be sent to the Secretariat in any of the two official languages (French and English); the data in the database would however, for practical and financial reasons, be available only in English.

The PC-OC agreed on the principle that it would be the responsibility of the Committee members to forward the data, on a regular basis (yearly), to the Secretariat. The Secretariat should find ways to have a simple way to update the data, in order to avoid as much as possible extra work for the national correspondent. It is indeed clearly understood that any database is useful only at the condition that the data are accurate and regularly updated. This shared database would exist under shared responsibility.

Accessibility

The database would be accessible to the public. Access to the personal data of the national correspondent would however be restricted (see above under proposal I).

Action requested by the CDPC:
The PC-OC invites the CDPC to invite the Committee of Ministers to:
- take note and support the proposal to setting up a database on information on national procedure on judicial co-operation in the criminal field;
- instruct the CDPC to set-up this database and to report, following its session in 2008, to the Committee of Ministers on this matter.

Proposal N°3 On the Transnational criminal justice web site, publications and a newsletter

Web site

The web site on “transnational criminal justice - TCJ” should primarily meet the needs of members of PC-OC as well as those of practitioners of judicial co-operation in the criminal justice field.

It should provide easy access to the applicable instruments and to the tools elaborated – mostly by the PC-OC- to facilitate their implementation (be they legal instruments such as Recommendations or practical measures such as the database).

It should also include all relevant information and documents on PC-OC work in order to efficiently prepare and follow the Committee meetings.

The TCJ web site should propose additional links to other relevant web sites in the field of judicial co-operation: CoE web sites (ECtHR, Codexter, Moneyval, CPT) and others such as European Union, UN,…

Links to the proposal N°1 –network- and 2 –database- should also be provided for.

Publications

Two publications have been finalised in 2006: “Extradition – European standards” and “co-operation against crime: CoE conventions”.

The first publication is of particular interest as it presents the legal instruments applicable on a specific matter, i.e. extradition, as well as commentaries on the application of the main conventional provisions. These commentaries are elaborated by the PC-OC when discussing practical problems on the application or interpretation of the convention(s). The publication compiles these solutions in one volume and is therefore considered to offer useful guidance to practitioners of judicial co-operation as well as for future discussions in the PC-OC on similar issues.

Similar publications should be undertaken by the Secretariat on other matters such as mutual assistance and the transfer of sentenced persons.

The Secretariat should ensure regular updating of such publications in order to incorporate progressively the outcomes of PC-OC discussions. These updates should be made available to the public through the web site.

Newsletter

More extensive diffusion of information pertaining to judicial co-operation is needed. Practitioners / PC-OC members are encouraged to communicate news to the Secretariat which could disseminate them through the web site and by e-mail, in the form of a newsletter.

The Newsletter could present information on:

Action requested by the CDPC:
The PC-OC invites the CDPC to invite the Committee of Ministers to take note and support the development of practical measures aimed at strengthening the efficiency of international co-operation through better visibility and exchange of information via web site, publications and a newsletter.

Proposals for normative measures

Background

The PC-OC’s terms of reference entrusts it to work on normative measures upon instruction of the CDPC. At this stage, the Committee is presenting to the CDPC the following suggestions for normative changes.

The Committee decided to deal in a first stage with extradition matters. The European convention on extradition (1957) is indeed one of the oldest European conventions in the criminal field and deserves to be fully reconsidered. In addition, extradition directly impacts on individuals’ rights and freedoms, on which the CDPC asked the PC-OC to pay particular attention.

The Committee agreed that in doing so, it could also raise aspects of international co-operation relating to other CoE conventions. Matters linked to extradition can also have an impact on mechanisms foreseen by other conventions and could lead to a change to that instrument.

Extradition

A- Matters for requests for instructions by CDPC:

I.1 Simplified extradition

Proposal
The 1957 European Convention on Extradition could be revised in order to include mechanisms of simplified extradition when the person sought consents to his or her extradition. If such consent is expressed, there is no need to go through all the formalities of an extradition procedure. A simplified procedure could be proposed as an amendment to the existing extradition convention. As a result, delays of surrender would in most cases be reduced substantially. This would contribute to reach the main objective to increase the efficiency and rapidity of extradition mechanisms.

The simplified extradition mechanism proposed in the EU convention on simplified extradition of 1995 could serve as a reference for discussions in the CoE context.

Forms of simplified extradition already exist in practice (one expert informed that 2/3 of extradition requests are dealt with through such simplified procedures). It would be desirable to elaborate a treaty basis for this, accessible to a high number of States. Any new norm should however not have any negative or limitative impacts on the current practice of simplified extradition.

Modalities:

The question is whether, in the situation where a person is arrested and consents to his or her extradition, there is a need for a formal request of extradition and for the supporting documents requested by Art 12 ECE or could the “arresting” State surrender the person without such request and documents?

Practice varies among States. In a majority of States where simplified extradition is applied, it is considered that it is of the interest of the person sought to be quickly surrendered once his or her consent has been expressed. States often find the information they need in the request for provisional arrest, in application of Art 16.2 ECE.

In a few States however, there is a need for the extradition request and for the documents requested by Art 12. The consent of the person would, in this case, be taken into account in the extradition procedure in order to have a quicker final decision and a quicker surrender.

It was also proposed that Art 4 of the EU 1995 convention on simplified extradition, on “information to be provided” be used as a reference in the CoE context and would describe the information which has to be transmitted to the requested State.

A solution could be to leave it to the States’ discretion whether to ask or not for the application of Art 12. Such an option could either be foreseen in a binding instrument or be made by way of declaration when acceding to such instrument.

The consent expressed by the person sought should be voluntary, conscious and in full awareness of the legal consequences. The person should not be deprived from the procedural guarantees defined by each State, notably the access to a defence lawyer and to an interpreter.

Many states foresee cases where the consent may be withdrawn. It is proposed that a time limit be fixed, after which the consent should not anymore be revocable. Such limit could be the date of the administrative decision on the surrender.4

It is understood that:

The Committee also briefly examined in this context the application of Art 15 of the convention on the re-extradition to third States.

It is proposed that States would indicate, in application of any new binding instrument on simplified extradition if articles 14 (speciality rule) and 15 (re extradition) ECE are applicable.

Time limits could be envisaged for the decision on surrender, after the consent is given. States should be encouraged to take a decision and to surrender the person in the shortest delays (which could not exceed the limits expressed in Art 18 ECE).

Request to CDPC:
PC-OC requests the CDPC to be mandated to draft the necessary legal instruments to give a treaty basis to simplified forms of extradition when the person sought consent. It could take the form of (a) –framework- provision(s) amending the extradition convention, supplemented by (a) non binding instrument(s) assisting States in implementing this mechanism.

I.2 Rule of specialty (Art 14 ECE)

The principle of the application of the speciality rule should be reaffirmed.

Renunciation to the speciality rule could be envisaged:

In the latter situation, the following practical questions would need further discussion: should such consent be transmitted to the requested State? Would the requesting State need the agreement of the requested State before prosecuting the person? Should safeguards set forth in Art 13 EAW apply in this case as well (the consent should be expressed “voluntarily and in full awareness of the consequences”, right to legal counsel)? Could States assess the circumstances in which the consent was given, e.g. through its consulates? Should all documents and evidence be sent to the requesting State in application of Art 14 a.? How? Should this requirement be lightened? Should a model form be used for receiving the consent of the person? It has been proposed to include a presumption that the requested State agrees with the waiving of the specialty rule, unless it reacts otherwise?

As a conclusion, some members of the group supported the idea to regulate renunciation to the specialty rule following the surrender, before the requesting State's judicial authorities, keeping in mind Article 10.1.d of the Convention of 27 September 1995 drawn up on the basis of Article K.3.of the treaty on European Union, relating to extradition between the Members of the EU.

The question of the application of the specialty rule in relation with re extradition to third States (Art 15 ECE) was also mentioned.

Request to the CDPC:
PC-OC requests the CDPC to be mandated to draft the necessary legal instruments – binding and/or non binding - outlining conditions and modalities of application of the specialty rule and of the renunciation to the rule, with reference to Art 14 ECE.

I.3 Channels/means of communication (Art 12 ECE and Art 5, 2nd Protocol)

According to Art 5 of the 2nd additional protocol to the ECE, ratified by 40 States: "The request shall be in writing and shall be addressed by the Ministry of Justice of the requesting Party to the Ministry of Justice of the requested Party; however, use of the diplomatic channel is not excluded. Other means of communication may be arranged by direct agreement between two or more Parties." These articles could possibly be updated in order to refer also the central authority “as defined by each Party by declaration”, which can be, as it is the case for some States, the Prosecutor’s Office.

Parties could also be encouraged to make agreements on the use electronic means of communication (e-mails), at least in order to facilitate the exchange of information regarding the preparation or the execution of co-operation requests. Any new instrument should however remain as flexible as to possibly be applicable to future technological innovations and hence avoid the need to be regularly updated.

Request to CDPC:
PC-OC requests the CDPC to be mandated to draft the necessary legal instruments – binding and/or non binding - to broaden the definition of national authorities responsible for co-operation requests and to encourage states to use, whenever appropriate, electronic means of communication.

I.4 Time limits

The need for expedient procedure applies for extradition for the purpose of prosecution as well as for the purpose of executing a sentence. In the latter case, shorter procedures are needed notably because the period of detention pending extradition seems to be not always taken into consideration by requesting States.

Some experts agreed that a limit of 6 months before the 1st instance decision could be inserted through a binding instrument. Stricter time limits would probably not be realistic. The 6 months time limit would give an idea of the maximum period of time to be expected in an extradition procedure. This time limit seems to cover the different situations and procedures in an extradition process. Such time limit should not impact on the possibility for a person to ask for interim measures in application of the European Convention on Human rights.

The Group thought that additional views are needed on this question. Participants to the next meeting of the group will be invited to prepare suggestions or positions on this matter.

Request to the CDPC:
PC-OC requests the CDPC to be mandated to draft the necessary legal instruments of two kinds:
- binding measures on a maximum time limit for a decision on extradition and
- non binding measures addressing a set of principles so as to reduce time limits and avoid long extradition procedures (and long detention before extradition). Such (an) instrument(s) could also address issues of co-operation such as languages and translation, sending of documents/information etc.

I.5 Language (Art 12, Art 23 ECE)

Practice shows that a request for extradition would have better chances to be quickly handled in the requested State if the request is addressed in the language of that State. However, this could create practical difficulties in some States where access to translators to the various languages of CoE member States is difficult. Such States would easier find translators in CoE official languages (with the risk that the same documents would have to be translated again in the language of the requested State).

A distinction could be made between the two types of requests

The Group also referred in this context to Art 4 of the EU convention on simplified extradition, outlining which information (instead of documents) is needed.

Request to the CDPC:
PC-OC requests the CDPC to be mandated to draft the necessary legal instruments – of binding and/or of non binding nature- outlining solutions for a simpler, less expensive and quicker extradition procedure and proposing best practices to be followed by States. Such legal text could identify which documents or which information should be transmitted and translated, with reference to Art 12 ECE.

I.6 Compensation and return of the person

Three hypotheses are to be considered:

As it seems, practice in terms of compensation widely varies among States. An approximation of legislation or practice would be desirable in this matter, in particular as it directly concerns the individual’s rights. Any future work should therefore carefully consider the case law of the ECtHR in this matter.

In conformity with the idea of the development of a transnational criminal justice, the PC-OC is of the opinion that the treatment of persons in transnational criminal procedures such as extradition should not in principle be too different than the treatment of nationals in the same circumstances.

As a conclusion, the group agreed that a questionnaire to all PC-OC members should be prepared. Mr Selvaggi offered to assist the Secretariat to prepare such a questionnaire before the next meeting.

Request to the CDPC:
PC-OC requests the CDPC to take note of the matter, which will be followed by the PC-OC through a questionnaire to all members. The PC-OC will elaborate future proposals on the basis of the result of the questionnaire and on further discussions on this matter.

I.7 Lapse of time (Art 10 ECE)

Art 10 of the convention foresees that the laws of either the requesting or the requested State shall be considered. In practice, experts seem to consider that the laws in the requesting State prevail. The Schengen agreement (Art. 626) shares the same approach. This can however lead to legal or practical difficulties: the requested State is not always best equipped to interpret the application of the legislation of another State.

On the other side, the EAW foresees (Art 4.47), as an optional ground for refusal to surrender, the situation where the prosecution or the punishment is statute barred according to the law of the requested state and where that State has jurisdiction over the acts according to its law. This legal basis appeared to be supported by several experts.

Some members observed that States developed a practice under bilateral treaties, dealing with this matter.

A possible way forward could be to keep the optional basis (the laws of either the requesting or the requested State) but to transform lapse of time as an optional ground for refusal. Art 10 can be amended by transforming “shall not be granted” by “may not be granted”. Further work would also be needed on modalities and consequences of interruption of lapse of time.

Question:
PC-OC requests the CDPC to be mandated to draft the necessary legal instruments – of binding nature, possibly completed by instrument of non binding nature- dealing with lapse of time.

B- Outstanding questions: positions and requests to be finalised by the PC-OC before being sent to the CDPC

I.8 Grounds for refusal (Art 3, 4, 5 ECE)

Difficulties have mostly emerged in practice when States have considered the application of Art 3 – Political offences. The number of such cases where difficulties appeared is however rather limited even if they often attract great attention. Solutions presented by the conventions on terrorism, hijacking of aircrafts, European Arrest Warrant, restricting the use of this ground for refusal, were considered.

The majority of the group questioned therefore the opportunity to embark in a revision of Art 3 ECE.

One member of the group insisted on the difficulties to which the use of that article can lead to in practice, which can have a detrimental effect on relations between member States, in the field of international co-operation in criminal matters, and beyond. He reiterated the suggestion that offences should not be regarded as political offences when the crime for which co-operation is required is subject to an international convention to which both States at stake are parties (see also the 2003 Protocol to the Convention on suppression of terrorism and the 2005 Convention on the prevention of terrorism - Art 20: exclusion of the political exception clause)8;
Consideration could also be given to developments in the EU, in particular the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) where, in view of political prosecution, a general clause of non discrimination was included in its Preamble (para. 12) 9.

The Committee agreed not to deal with fiscal offences but rather to encourage States to accede to the 2nd additional Protocol to the ECE, which Art.2 offers solutions in this regard. It also agreed not to deal with military offences at this stage, as they do not seem to create much difficulty in practice.

Request to CDPC:
PC-OC requests the CDPC to
- discuss the opportunity to review Art 3 ECE on “political offences” and instruct the PC-OC to carry out any further work as deemed appropriate;
- discuss the PC-OC proposal not to deal with fiscal or military offences at this stage.

I.9 Procedural safeguards

PC-OC considered two ways to provide higher protection of individuals in extradition procedures10:

Future discussions in the CoE committees should take duly into account the current discussions in the EU on a draft framework decision on procedural rights.

Due consideration should also be given to the difficulties that some States may have in acceding to any new legally binding instrument which would include such rights or safeguards in a mandatory manner.

Request to CDPC:
PC-OC requests the CDPC to discuss the opportunity to include procedural safeguards in extradition mechanisms and to instruct the PC-OC to carry out any further work as deemed appropriate.

I.10 Concurrent requests (Art 17 ECE)

The PC-OC considered that cases of concurrent requests for extradition/surrender issued by several States and/or by (an) international criminal jurisdiction(s) deserved further discussions. It agreed however that such situation appears rarely in practice.

PC-OC considered the difference in nature of an extradition and a surrender requested by an international tribunal. The PC-OC consequently decided not to embark at this stage in a normative exercise on this question and to insert it among other matters under “longer term issues”.

ٳ the issues mentioned below have not been discussed by the Group. These are proposals prepared by the Secretariat, submitted for consideration by the Group and by the PC-OC, in view of future proposals to be submitted to the CDPC.

C - Longer term issues

Following the instructions given by the CDPC, the PC-OC discussed the following issues in the perspective of longer term results:

I.11 Extradition of nationals (Art 6 ECE)

The issue of extradition of nationals was discussed in connexion with the application of the principle “aut dedere aut judicare” and while having in mind constitutional guarantees set forth by several States protecting their nationals.

Future discussions could deal with the following matters:

Request to the CDPC:
The PC-OC requests the CDPC to take note of the proposals for future action in the field of extradition of nationals and to decide on any appropriate action to be taken by the PC-OC in this matter.

I.12 Ne bis in idem (Art 9 ECE)

The PC-OC observes, at this stage, the need to come back later to this issue, notably in order to clarify some ambiguities in the languages of the instruments (“offences” against “faits”). Recent decisions by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg could help in clarifying the matter.

Transversal issues

II. 1 Dispute settlement

The PC-OC discussed this issue on the basis of:
1. the proposal from the Russian Federation to foresee, by way of an additional Protocol to the Conventions on extradition and on mutual assistance, an arbitral procedure to settle disputes, on the basis of the provisions set forth in the 2003 Protocol to the convention on suppression of terrorism;
2. the note prepared by the Secretariat which describe the dispute settlement mechanisms foreseen by the CoE Conventions, i.e. mostly, the role of the CDPC, and the other possibilities to settle disputes: arbitration or international jurisdiction.

As to the first proposal, the PC-OC observed the difficulty for several members to be possibly bound by a procedure of arbitration which would be initiated by only one party to the dispute. It also underlined some legal difficulties linked notably to the authority that any arbitral decision could possibly have on a final judicial decision taken by a national –independent- competent jurisdiction. Several States underlined that such authority could hardly be compatible with their national constitutional provisions.

Request to the CDPC:
PC-OC request the CDPC to be mandated to draft additional binding provisions on the settlement of disputes arising from the application or the interpretation of the European Convention on Extradition and its Protocols. These provisions could:

II.2 Reservations (Art 26 ECE)

The following proposals are submitted to the CDPC for consideration:

Request to the CDPC:
The PC-OC requests the CDPC to take note of the proposals for future action in the field of reservations and to decide on any appropriate action to be taken by the PC-OC in this matter.

Other conventions

III.1 Transfer of sentenced persons

To be completed after the meeting in May 2007

[Further to the follow-up to be given to § 11 of the high Level Conference of Ministers of Justice and of the Interior in Moscow in November 2006, the PC-OC could envisage following area of possible developments:

Request to the CDPC:
To be completed following the meeting in May 2007.

III.2 Mutual assistance

It is probably too early to discuss the modernisation of a mechanism which has been recently updated by a 2nd additional Protocol (ratified by 12 States). Some practical applications of the convention and its Protocols could however be discussed further, such as the application of Art 22 on the transmission of information from criminal records and the application of MLA mechanisms to requests for DNA samples.

Request to the CDPC: the PC-OC requests the CDPC to decide on any appropriate action to be taken by the PC-OC in this matter, either rapidly or among other longer term issues.

III.3 Transmission of criminal proceedings

The PC-OC underlined the positive aspects of the Convention on the transmission of criminal proceedings (ETS 73) and considers it opportune to look further into its status of ratification and into matters pertaining to its application.

Request to the CDPC:
The PC-OC requests the CDPC to decide on any appropriate action to be taken by the PC-OC in this matter, either rapidly or among other longer term issues.

10 November 2006

HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE
OF THE MINISTRIES OF JUSTICE AND OF THE INTERIOR

Moscow (Russian Federation)

9 − 10 November 2006

IMPROVING EUROPEAN CO-PERATION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FIELD

CONCLUSIONS

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

  

* * *

APPENDIX IV

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS

ITALIA / ITALIE
Mr Eugenio SELVAGGI, la Corte di Appello, I – 00193 ROMA

AUSTRIA / AUTRICHE
Ms Barbara GOETH-FLEMMICH, Ministry of Justice, VIENNA

ESTONIA / ESTONIE
Ms Imbi MARKUS, Ministry of Justice, TALLINN

NETHERLANDS / PAYS-BAS
Ms. Linda BREGMAN, Ministry of Justice, THE HAGUE Apologised / Excusée

PORTUGAL
Mme Joana GOMES FERREIRA, Procuradoria Geral da República, LISBOA

SLOVAKIA / SLOVAQUIE
Mr Branislav BOHÁČIK, Ministry of Justice, BRATISLAVA

SWEDEN / SUEDE
Mr Per HEDVALL, Ministry of Justice, STOCKHOLM

SWITZERLAND / SUISSE
M. Jenni ERWIN, Office fédéral de la justice, BERNE

RUSSIA / RUSSIE
Mr Vladimir P. ZIMIN, Office of the Prosecutor General, MOSCOW

SECRETARIAT

Department of Crime Problems / Service des Problèmes criminels
Fax +33-3-88 41 27 94

Ms Bridget O’LOUGHLIN, Head of the Division of Criminal Justice / Chef de la Division de la Justice Pénale
TEL. +3-3-88 41 23 08 E-mail bridget.oloughlin@coe.int

Mr Humbert de BIOLLEY, Secretary to the Committee / Secrétaire du Comité
TEL. +33-3-90 21 47 03 E-mail humbert.debiolley@coe.int

Mr Carlo CHIAROMONTE, Deputy Head of the Criminal Justice Division
TEL. +33-(0)3-88 41 30.42 E-mail carlo.chiaromonte@coe.int

Ms Sophie KWASNY,
TEL. +33-(0)3-90 21 43 39 E-mail sophie.kwasny@coe.int

Mrs Marose BALA-LEUNG, Administrative Assistant / Assistante Administrative
TEL. +33-3-88 41 30 84 E-mail marose.bala-leung@coe.int


1 Ref. to the proposal n° 2 below to create an electronic database of national elements and procedures on judicial co-operation in criminal matters.

2 Ref. to the proposal n° 3 below on the web site, publications and newsletter.

3 Idem as in footnote 1

4 See also Art 13.4 of the EAW according to which the consent should not be revocable.

5 See also see Art 7.1 EU Convention 1995

6 Art 62, Schengen agreement: “As regards interruption of limitation of actions, only the provisions of the requesting Contracting Party shall apply.”

7 Art 4.4 EAW: “The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant: 4. where the criminal prosecution or punishment of the requested person is statute-barred according to the law of the executing Member State and the acts fall within the jurisdiction of that Member State under its own criminal law”

8 Article 20 – Exclusion of the political exception clause : 1   None of the offences referred to in Articles 5 to 7 and 9 of this Convention, shall be regarded, for the purposes of extradition or mutual legal assistance, as a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence, or as an offence inspired by political motives. Accordingly, a request for extradition or for mutual legal assistance based on such an offence may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives

9

10