FantasticSearch

(1) The Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.

(2) The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union requires Member States to consider possibilities for concentrating the prosecution in cross-border multilateral cases in one Member State, with a view to increasing the efficiency of prosecutions while guaranteeing the proper administration of justice.

(3) The Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters calls for an instrument enabling criminal proceedings to be transferred to other Member States.

(4) Further development of judicial cooperation between Member States is needed to increase the efficient and proper administration of criminal justice within the common area of freedom, security and justice and to ensure that the best-placed Member State investigates or prosecutes a criminal offence. In particular, common rules for Member States regarding the transfer of criminal proceedings could help to prevent unnecessary parallel criminal proceedings in different Member States in respect of the same facts and the same person, which could result in an infringement of the ne bis in idem principle. Such common rules could also reduce the number of multiple criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts or in respect of the same person being conducted in different Member States. Such common rules also aim to ensure that it is possible for a transfer of criminal proceedings to take place if the surrender of a person for criminal prosecution under a European arrest warrant, pursuant to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA , is delayed or refused for reasons such as the existence of ongoing parallel criminal proceedings in another Member State for the same criminal offence, in order to avoid impunity of the person being prosecuted.

(5) Common rules on the transfer of criminal proceedings are also essential in order to fight cross-border crime efficiently, which is especially important in relation to crimes committed by organised criminal groups, such as drug trafficking, migrant smuggling, trafficking in human beings, firearms trafficking, environmental crime, cybercrime or money laundering. Prosecuting organised criminal groups that are active in multiple Member States can create great difficulties for the authorities involved. The transfer of criminal proceedings is an important tool which would reinforce the fight against organised criminal groups that are active across the Union.

(6) In order to ensure effective cooperation between requesting authorities and requested authorities in relation to the transfer of criminal proceedings, rules on such transfer should be established by a legally binding and directly applicable act of the Union.

(7) This Regulation should apply to all requests for transfer issued within the framework of criminal proceedings.

(8) Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA aims to prevent situations where the same person is subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different Member States in respect of the same facts, which might lead to the final disposal of those proceedings in two or more Member States. That Framework Decision therefore establishes a procedure for direct consultations between competent authorities of the Member States concerned with the aim of reaching a consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from such parallel proceedings and the waste of time and resources of those competent authorities. Where those competent authorities decide, following consultations in accordance with that Framework Decision, to concentrate proceedings in one Member State through the transfer of criminal proceedings, such transfer should be carried out in accordance with this Regulation.

(9) Other legal acts in the area of criminal matters, particularly those related to specific types of crime such as Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Framework Decisions 2002/475/JHA and 2008/841/JHA , include provisions referring to the factors to be taken into account with the aim of centralising criminal proceedings in a single Member State in the event that more than one Member State can validly prosecute on the basis of the same facts. Where the competent authorities of the Member States concerned decide, following cooperation in accordance with such legal acts, to centralise criminal proceedings in a single Member State through the transfer of criminal proceedings, such transfer should be carried out in accordance with this Regulation.

(10) Several Union legal acts have been adopted on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and judicial decisions in criminal matters, in particular Council Framework Decisions 2005/214/JHA , 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA . This Regulation supplements those Framework Decisions and does not affect their application.

(11) This Regulation does not affect spontaneous exchanges of information regulated by other Union legal acts.

(12) This Regulation does not apply to decisions to reallocate, merge or split cases in relation to which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has exercised its competence in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 .

(13) For the purposes of this Regulation, Member States should designate their competent authorities in a way that promotes the principle of direct contact between those authorities.

(14) For the purposes of this Regulation and in the interest of facilitating its effective application across the Union, in the event that the structure of the internal legal systems of Member States with common law traditions does not allow for their courts and prosecutors to take measures ancillary to the decision to accept or refuse a transfer of criminal proceedings, another authority, with competence to take measures in criminal proceedings, should be able to take such ancillary measures. The involvement of such competent authority should not prejudice in any way the decision, to be taken exclusively by a judge, court, investigating judge or public prosecutor, on whether to accept or refuse a transfer of criminal proceedings, which should, by necessity, include its assessment of the grounds for refusal under this Regulation. The involvement of any other competent authority is solely intended to facilitate such judicial decision-making and the effective application of this Regulation.

(15) Where necessary due to the structure of their internal legal systems, it should be possible for Member States to designate one or more central authorities for the administrative transmission and reception of requests for the transfer of criminal proceedings, as well as for other official correspondence relating to such requests. Such central authorities could also provide administrative support and have coordinating and assisting roles, thereby facilitating and promoting the acceptance of requests for the transfer of criminal proceedings.

(16) Some Union legal acts already require Member States to take necessary measures to establish jurisdiction over specific criminal offences, such as those related to terrorist activities pursuant to Directive (EU) 2017/541 or to the counterfeiting of the euro pursuant to Directive 2014/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council , in cases where the surrender of a person is refused.

(17) In order to ensure that it is possible for criminal proceedings to be transferred in accordance with this Regulation wherever the interests of efficient and proper administration of justice and the effective protection of the fundamental rights of the suspects, accused persons and victims, as set out in Union law, so require, this Regulation should provide for jurisdiction in specific cases so that the requested State is able to exercise jurisdiction in relation to the criminal offences to which the national law of the requesting State is applicable. The requested State should have jurisdiction over criminal offences for which the transfer of criminal proceedings is sought, whenever that Member State is considered to be best placed to prosecute the criminal offence in question. The rules on jurisdiction provided for in this Regulation should not prevent Member States from adopting national measures to ensure that they are able to exercise jurisdiction in the specific cases provided for in this Regulation.

(18) In addition to the jurisdiction already provided for by the national law of the requested State, jurisdiction should be established on the basis of the specific grounds set out in this Regulation wherever that Member State is considered as being best placed to prosecute. The requested State should have jurisdiction in situations where the requested State refuses to surrender a suspect or accused person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued and who is present in the requested State and is a national of or a resident in that State, where such refusal is based on the specific grounds set out in this Regulation. For example, jurisdiction should be established where surrender is refused on the basis of Article 4, point (7)(b), of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, which applies in situations where offences have been committed outside the territory of the issuing Member State and the law of the executing Member State does not allow prosecution for the same offences when committed outside its territory. That rule could be applied in situations where an offence is committed on the territory of another Member State or of a third country by nationals of other Member States or third-country nationals, and the suspect or accused person is a resident in the requested State. This is of particular importance as regards serious crimes violating fundamental values of the international community, such as war crimes or genocide, where a risk of impunity might arise due to a European arrest warrant being refused on the basis of Article 4, point (7)(b), of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. The requested State should also have jurisdiction where the criminal offence produces its effects or causes damage mainly in the requested State. Damage should be taken into account provided that it is one of the constituent elements of the criminal offence, in accordance with the national law of the requested State. The requested State should also have jurisdiction when criminal proceedings are already ongoing in that State against the same suspect or accused person in respect of other facts, so that all the alleged criminal conduct of such a person could be judged in one single jurisdiction, or when criminal proceedings are ongoing in that State against other persons in respect of the same, partially the same or related facts, which might be of particular relevance for concentrating the investigation and prosecution of a criminal organisation in one Member State. In both cases, the suspect or accused person in the criminal proceedings being transferred should be a national of or a resident in the requested State.