European Judicial Network Contact Points Regional Meeting in Lithuania
24th-25th September 2015, Vilnius
Report of the meeting
Participating countries: Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, Finland
Meeting venue – Shakespeare Boutique Hotel, Bernardinų str. 8, Vilnius
The Regional meeting took place in Vilnius on 24-25 September 2015. The meeting was chaired by Mr Tomas Krušna (Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania) and Mr Darius Žilys (Ministry of Justice, Lithuania).
Tomas Krušna welcomed the participants and presented the topics of the agenda. The agenda was adopted by the participants. He explained that the purpose of the meeting is:
1) to exchange information, difficulties and best practices between contact points as regards implementation and application of EU legal acts on judicial cooperation in criminal matters;
2) to set closer ties with EJN contact points of neighbouring countries.
The floor was given to the representatives of each country in order to make short presentations on the status quo on implementation of EU legal acts on judicial cooperation in criminal matters, namely FD 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA, 2009/829/JHA.
Almost all countries have already implemented all mentioned FD. The implementation as a rule was executed by changing Criminal Procedure Codes, Penal Enforcement Codes or by separate Laws. Delegate from Sweden explained that FD on probation has not implemented in Sweden yet.
It was presented information on competent authorities, language requirements, declarations according to these FD, also some countries informed about court trainings to introduce the novelties of legal regulation.
Another question that was discussed - challenges of application of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (Custodial Sentences). Delegate form Latvia made a presentation.
It was pointed, that a district court is the competent authority within the meaning of Article 2 of the FD 2008/909/JHA, MOJ is a central authority. With regard to languages to be used in documents – Latvia on the basis Article 23 of the FD 2008/909/JHA only accepts documents which are translated into Latvian. The most common problems - documents translation – Latvian Central authority ensure the translation of enclosed judgment (Latvian courts need all the documents to be translated in Latvian), important time limit, person resocializacion aspects – have to be central questions during the judgment evaluation, the Certificate is not complete and accurate. It was also mentioned the time limit requirements, Latvia meets the criteria; statistic data, practical problems in relation to custodial sentence execution. After the presentation delegates started discusions and presented their practical problems, statistic data, language requirements, consultation procedure, ect.
On Framework Decision 2008/829/JHA (Supervision Order) - Ms Tuuli Eerolainen from Finland made a presentation.
She pointed out the main questions: supervision in home state instead of provisional arrest in the state of the investigation -not endangering the criminal procedure. Lack of residence shall not determine coersive measure, same treatment for same offences, resource issues. Talking about execution in Finland she pointed that as of travel ban (article 8.1) there are few options according to Finland legislation: remain in the locality or area referred to in the decision; remain away from or not move in an area referred to in the decision; remain available at his or her residence or place of work at certain times; present himself or herself to the police at certain times; remain in an institution or hospital into which he or she has already been admitted or is to be admitted; refrain from contacting a witness, an injured person, an expert or an accomplice; or surrender his or her passport to the police. Competent authorities (issuing) - court when it decides about keeping in custody, prosecutor in other situation; executing – prosecutors in 4 areas. Later on there was a discussion among participants about their law reuirements and not big practise. Participants agreed that it would be useful to have a Handbook on FD. Only Lithuania had one successful case.
On Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA (Probation) Mr Tauras Rutkūnas from Lithuania made presentation. He pointed out that Lithuania started to apply the provisions of new separate Law since April 2015, therefore practice is still forming. Only few cases in practice. When Lithuania is an executing State, the district courts are its competent authorities to recognise decisions involving deprivation or liberty or probation decisions transmitted by the competent authorities of other EU Member States, and district courts are competent to directly receive judgments involving deprivation of liberty or probation decisions transmitted by other EU Member States. A judgment involving deprivation of liberty or a probation decision issued in an EU MS is recognised in Lithuania by the district court of the place of residence of the sentenced person or, if the sentenced person has no residence in the Republic of Lithuania, the decision is recognised by Vilnius District Court. When Lithuania is an issuing State, the district courts are its competent authorities to transmit judgments involving deprivation of liberty or probation decisions to other EU Member States. After the presentation there was a discussion.
On the next day Mr Darius Žilys presented the last topics of the agenda.
Meeting started from disccusions on recent difficulties arisen in the application of the European Arrest Warrant proceedings. Presentation was made from Latvia. The main mentioned difficulties, as an executing country: double criminality, raw cases (especially from Germany in phishing cases– surrendered person after a week gets back to Latvia), alternative accusations (more tipically for Norway, not a pure EAW problem – theft or acquisition and sale of property obtained by way of crime if theft is not proved during the trial. As an issuing country: Internal problems (proportionality), declared languages, status of the suspected person.
During discussions the participants also mentioned the principal of proportionality. Lithuania changed the law as regards that. Sweden has no provisions on proportionality in national law. Also participants had discussions on the assurances that are requested from another EU member states regarding prisons conditions. Delegate from Estonia pointed that the MOJ would give such assurances. Delegate from Poland mentioned that they also receives such requests, they send back the information about certain prison and explain the conditions of the imprisonment. There was also mentioned the important case pending in the Court of Justice.
The next question that was presented - sharing experience with third countries in MLA and extradition cases (EJN assistance). Mrs Eve Olesk from Estonia made a presentation.
Eve pointed that there are many problems with Russia regarding MLA requests, Russia asks more information that requires, also there are problems with dual criminality. USA do not execute MLA requests if the crime is not priority crime. Estonia uses IBERED network when it cooperates with Latin America countries and it seems this network is useful. The most extradition cases are with USA, Russia, Norway. Problems – descriptions of crimes, with Russia – lack of mutual trust.
There was a discussion among participants what measures are taken when there are no treaties among EU member states and other third countries. Latvia uses principal of reciprocity in MLA cases with Canada, in extradition cases with South America countries. Latvia has provisions on reciprocity in their national law. Problems with China, Russia. Finland can extradite without treaties, in MLA cases do not asks reciprocity. If needed MOJ gives assuarances. Finland also uses IBERED contacts. Sweden has “open“ legislation on that. There are no provisions on reciprocity in the national law. Poland has treaties with China, Thailand, but there are problems in practice. All participants pointed that it would be useful to have more EU treaties with the third countries.
Another question that was discussed – MLA requests with Crimea, they are not executed.
The last presentation was from Poland - “Tasks of the Department for International Cooperation, Prosecutor General's Office. EJN in Poland – legal basis, tasks and scope of activity”.