(c) the right to a lawyer in the issuing Member State if your Member State is the executing Member State (steps to be taken by the executing Member State)?
|
Austria
|
There is no provision that the suspect must be informed about the right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing member state.
|
Belgium
|
No specific provision does exists in the Belgian law in that respect, and needs thus to be implemented in the Belgian law.
|
Bulgaria
|
Neither EEAWA, nor CPC contain provisions concerning the right to a lawyer in the issuing Member State, if Bulgaria is the executing Member State. Therefore, changes have to be made by transposing all the requirements of Article 10.5 of the Directive into Bulgarian law.
|
Croatia
|
There is no such provision in the Law on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters with EU countries or in Croatian CPA.
|
Cyprus
|
Currently there is no such provision in our current legislation because the Directive 2012/13/EU is not yet implemented in Cyprus (see answer in Question 1 (a))
|
Czech Republic
|
See the previous reply.
|
Estonia
|
The obligation of the authorities to provide information to facilitate the exercise of the right to a lawyer need to be introduced.
|
Finland
|
See previous answer.
|
France
|
No provision states that is a right to a lawyer in the issuing member state.
|
Germany
|
|
Greece
|
Providing a clear legislative framework, coupled with the ability of the executing Member State, to provide a free counsel.
|
Hungary
|
No information. A European database and/or a closer cooperation between the competent authorities in this issue would be useful.
|
Ireland
|
The situation is similar. One routinely sees cases where a person who is privately funded and has access to lawyers in the requesting State is in a position to put more information before the Irish Court than a person who is reliant solely on the Court-appointed Irish lawyer. This lead as a minimum to a delay in proceedings where questions in respect of the law of the requesting State need to be channelled by the Court through the executing member State’s lawyers back to the lawyers for the Government in the requesting State.
On the contrary where a person has joint representation, privately funded of course, the answers to such questions can generally be procured very quickly leading to a more satisfactory disposition of the proceedings in a shorter time frame, particularly important if the detained person has not been admitted to bail (conditional release).
|
Italy
|
No provision about request to appoint a lawyer in the issuing state unless provided by the national law of the requesting state. Usually the issuing state should give information to the executing state about the rules to comply with.
|
Latvia
|
No changes needed, effective exercise of this right is granted.
|
Lithuania
|
Such provisions are not incorporated in Lithuanian law yet.
|
Luxembourg
|
Should be a minimum guarantee foreseen in the legislation of the executing state
|
Malta
|
Making available to the lawyer in the executing Member State all the information / Documentation sent by the Issuing Member State.
|
Poland
|
As it was indicated above, in Polish CCP there are no regulations determining the duty of the proper Polish authority (if Poland is the executing Member State) to inform a detainee on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant, immediately after depravation of liberty, about his or her right to establish a lawyer in the issuing Member State. Proper provision fulfilling the required standard of the Article 10(4) is needed.
|
Portugal
|
No changes needed.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
Relevant legislation: Act No. 154/2010 on EAW
In this respect the Directive on the EAW was literally transposed to the Slovak legislation and no significant discrepancies thus exist.
|
Slovenia
|
As far as I am informed the Slovenian law doesn't provide that Slovenia as an executing Member State should inform the requested person that he/she has a right to a lawyer in the issuing Member State. In this respect the law implementing EAW should be amended.
|
Spain
|
See answers below.
|
Sweden
|
In order to comply with the Directive there is a need for amendment to ensure that
- information is provided to the suspect about his or her right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing state.
- prompt information is given to the competent authority in the issuing state when the requested person wish to exercise the right to a lawyer in that state.
|
The Netherlands
|
Every person arrested in the Netherlands on the basis of an EAW is provided with a letter of rights ( http://bit.ly/1U6LwJt). However, this letter does not mention the right of the wanted person to appoint a lawyer in the issuing member state.
|
(d) the use of a European Supervision Order in appropriate cases?
|
Austria
|
None
|
Belgium
|
No specific provision does exists in the Belgian law in that respect.
|
Bulgaria
|
No information.
|
Croatia
|
No information.
|
Cyprus
|
There is no provision in the current legislation for a European Supervision Order. The Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 has not been adopted yet by Cyprus. According to the Ministry of Justice and Public Order the said Decision will be implemented by early 2016.
|
Czech Republic
|
The Czech Republic has already implemented ESO into the Act no. 104/2013 Coll., about international judicial cooperation.
|
Estonia
|
This possibility needs to be introduced.
|
Finland
|
Even though Finland has implemented the ESO, we don’t have experience of it. This is likely due to the fact that many countries have not yet implemented it and therefore the ESO is not even considered to be applied.
|
France
|
|
Germany
|
|
Greece
|
Explicit provision for the principle of proportionality.
|
Hungary
|
No information.
|
Ireland
|
The European Supervision Order is not properly employed in Ireland at all.
|
Italy
|
Not used for pre – trial detention
|
Latvia
|
No regulation. This procedure needs to be provided in law.
|
Lithuania
|
I have no information that European Supervision Order was used in practise.
|
Luxembourg
|
Should be the objective to reach but for this it would be helpful to invite the European member states concrete the application of the Council Framework decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009.
Otherwise the possibilities of use of this instrument stay limited even though the use of ESO would permit to investigate cases offering the possibility to concerned person to stay in their environment regarding their familiarly and professional situation.
In addition, the ESO would be an instrument to reduce the judicial costs compared to the EAW
|
Malta
|
Legislation is already in force although not often used.
|
Poland
|
The Polish Code of Criminal Proceedings of 1997 regulates issues concerning the so-called European Supervision Order and its use in Chapter 65c and 65d. Existing provisions are the result of the implementation of the Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of the 23rd of October, 2009. Both mentioned chapters were introduced to CCP by the Act of the 31st of August, 2012 on amending the Code of Criminal Proceedings (Journal of Laws of the 2nd of October, 2012, item 1091). I have no information about the practice of application of the provisions concerning a European Supervision Order (no examples of appropriate cases).
|
Portugal
|
No changes needed.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
Relevant legislation: Act No. 154/2010 on EAW
In this respect the Directive on the EAW was literally transposed to the Slovak legislation and no significant discrepancies thus exist.
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenian law provides for many alternative measures to pre-trial detention (house arrest, an obligation to report regularly to police or to reside at a specified place, etc. ), so there is no specific need to implement any important changes in this respect. In practice however, these alternative measures are rarely used when the requested person is non-resident in Slovenia.
|
Spain
|
There is no legal provision at this respect due to lack of transposition of the Council Framework decision.
|
Sweden
|
Legislation regarding the use of an European Supervision Order has entered into force as late as 1 August 2015. Hence, No general practice has yet been established.
|
The Netherlands
|
We do not understand this question. It does not make sense to issue a European Supervision Order in EAW cases. Please clarify if you want an answer to this question.
|
