ejn-crimjust.europa.eu€¦ · web viewthe ejn secretariat should, in view of needs raised by...

EJN/2015/10

Annex

Reference document (Relevant paragraphs containing recommendations, from the country reports and the final report)

Part I

Action Plan

1. Website related recommendations, remarks and conclusions

1.1. On the User-friendliness of the website and its tools

A. Recommendations

“The EJN Secretariat should, in view of needs raised by practitioners, address certain deficiencies regarding the user friendliness of the EJN website” (AT Report);

“The EJN Secretariat should further work on making the EJN website to become more user-friendly” (CZ Report); “Eurojust should look into the possibilities for improving the EAW Wizard and making it more user-friendly” (DE Report); “ To finalise the work on the new website, especially including the access to the back office for the EJN tool correspondents.” (SI Report); “The EJN secretariat should address the deficiencies regarding the user friendliness of the EJN website. EJN should keep the judicial tools

available on the EJN website regularly updated, in particular the Judicial Atlas. EJN should provide training on e-tools available.” (Rec 22 f from the Final Report)

B. Remarks and conclusions

“… the technical handling seems to be burdensome and characterised by frequent changes of the back office structure provided by the EJN Secretariat.”(AT Report, section 3.4.3);

“Belgian authorities stated that the computer programs to help draft the European arrest warrant or requests for assistance are time-consuming and practitioners therefore prefer to complete such requests using a Word® template. (BE Report, 6.3.4);

1

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“… there should be a review of whether or not the staffing of the EJN Secretariat could be improved, in particular as concerns the website administration team. One example of a practical measure serving to further improve the collaboration could be secure and prompt communication among the EJN contact points throughout Europe” (DE Report, 9.2);

“The EAW wizard is not used that often mainly because the Greek issuing authorities still feel more confident about filling out the standard Word forms.”(EL Report, 6.3.4);

“Filling in the forms on the website (e.g. EAW) is difficult, as information needs to be entered in a variety of boxes and the whole forms is not visible at one time. Moreover, forms usually cannot be saved and reused and should be more user-friendly. The Fiches belges are drawn up or filled in such a way that they are generally of no help; instead, users need to turn to the authorities in the country in question…. (FI Report);

“… to introduce better interactive forms to create MLA requests that could be filled in, saved and printed and if necessary reused by the user. The forms should also be visible entirely when completing them instead of seeing just one separate box at a time. The Finnish national member has already created such forms in the Finnish language for EAW and submitted them to the EJN Secretariat.” (FI Report, 6.3.4);

“French judicial authorities do not make much use of the Wizards for drawing up requests for mutual legal assistance and European arrest warrants. They are found impractical and difficult to use. (FR report, 6.3.5);

“… the website was generally regarded as a good tool and was said to work well, especially now that a lot of information has been added. The problem seems to be that there is no way of knowing whether the information is up to date and the Finnish authorities have urged their counterparts to do so. Because updating takes time, it would be useful for users if all information were to include the date when it was posted.” (FI Report, 6.3.4);

“It is rather difficult for practitioners to locate all necessary information on the web page (e.g. the forms can only be downloaded from the Library and there are only very few forms available.” (CZ Report, 6.3.4);

“The Italian authorities would recommend the preparation of a handbook, also in electronic form, specifying the various steps to be taken for optimal use of the EJN website. The expert team feels that a short introductory demonstration of the use of the website as part of a training session would be more beneficial”. (IT Report, 6.3.4);

“… national authorities still find it difficult to obtain necessary information as regards, for instance, the implementation or application of certain Framework Decisions and the MLA Convention. As an example of suggested improvements Lithuania mentions more regular updates of information on contact points. In addition, they note that it would be more convenient if names of competent authorities of certain foreign states were accompanied by an English translation”. (LT report, 6.5.1);

2

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“ … the EJN website could be improved by taking the following practical measures: launch the EJN website in a national language…; improve the EAW Atlas by adding the necessary information from notifications of Member States. For instance, add competent

authorities in transit cases and information on the time required to receive the EAW; improve the MLA Atlas by adding certain categories of actions requested, for instance service of documents other than summons; introduce an Atlas for other measures, for instance financial penalties.” (LT Report, 9).

“A negative assessment is given to repeated technical failures at the website, the result of which is a lack of round-the-clock availability, as well as information that is not updated”. (SK Report, 6.5.1);

“There are still problems with the accuracy and stringency of the information. The responsibility lies both at the EJN Secretariat as well as the Member States (Tool Correspondents). There is a need to be clear on the allocation of the responsibilities and follow-up measures on the updates. There is a need of a system for quality check. Still one cannot be 100 per cent certain that the information in e.g. the MLA or the EAW Atlases is correct. There is a need for a transparent strategic plan for the development of the website. As a result of the lack of such plan there is a risk that the work that is being done is not performed in the correct sequence.” (SE Report, 6.4.1)”’;

“In the opinion of the UK competent authorities, the fiche Belge could be improved to accommodate different legal systems. There should also be scope to add links to other useful resources particular to and individual Member State. It has been also proposed to enrich the information available on the EJN website with reports and summaries on important case law, in particular with relation to the implementation of the Euroean Arrest Warrant.” (UK Report, 6.3.4).

1.2. On the additional functions in the Atlas

A. Recommendations

The EJN should add a function to the EJN Atlas indicating the language in which the competent authorities wish to receive requests for assistance” (BE Report);

“The EJN should add to the EJN Atlas a functionality indicating the language in which the competent authorities wish to receive requests for assistance” (FR Report);

3

EJN/2015/10

Annex



“[the Atlas]… is highly appreciated by the practitioners and should be extended to the other instruments based on the principle of mutual recognition as soon as possible.” (AT Report, section 6.3.4);

“… the Bulgarian authorities pointed out that the site is open to improvement concerning the speed of opening the Atlas menus for international legal assistance and the information relating to mutual recognition instruments.” (BG Report, 6.3.2);

“…The Atlas is not very practical since it can be complicated and sometimes outdated”. (EE Report, 6.5.1); “One shortcoming is that the European Judicial Network website is not systematically updated. ATLAS and practical information on newly

introduced legal tools, e.g. execution of financial penalties or custodial sentences, would be very useful both to the EJN contact points and to the Polish courts.” (PL report, 6.3.4.);

“…It has not been possible to input all the information collected into the Atlas template due to technical restrictions. The Romanian authorities would very much like to solve this issue together with the EJN Secretariat….” “Because of technical reasons regarding the format of the Atlas template, the Romanian Atlas is still not fully available. It is strongly advisable that the Romanian authorities, in collaboration with the EJN Secretariat, find solutions to solve this problem.” (RO Report, 6.3.4 and 4 respectively);

1.3. On word/editable forms

A. Recommendations

“Eurojust and the EJN Secretariat should examine the possibility of providing a Word version of the form for freezing orders and also of forms attached to other Framework Decisions on the EJN website, in languages of all Member States, in order to facilitate the work of practitioners” (CZ Report);

“The Presidency (with the assistance of the EJN Secretariat) should clarify roles and responsibilities of the Member States in the updating of the data available through the EJN tools and closely monitor the update by Member States, in particular as regards the Atlas .” (FI Report);

4

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“The EJN should provide dynamic forms (e.g. for the EAW) in every language as filling in the forms on the EJN website has proven to be difficult” (FI Report);

“The EJN should provide user-friendly forms in all official European Union languages; the practitioners should always be able to fill in, save and reuse the forms on the EJN website” (IT Report);

“EJN templates for documents under framework decisions should be available in all EU languages and in Word format so that they can be downloaded and completed directly by practitioners.” (SI Report);


“The EAW wizard is not considered user-friendly, since it is not possible to use it to create the document directly.” (DE report, 6.3.4); “The templates provided on the EJN website, for example for freezing orders, are often not available in word format in all EU languages. This can

cause delay for practitioners who have to seek assistance in adapting the PDF templates for all framework decisions .” (SI Report, 6.3.1) “It is rather difficult for practitioners to locate all necessary information on the web page (e.g. the forms can only be downloaded from the

Library and there are only very few forms available)”. (CZ Report, 6.3.4)

1.4. On permanent update of the website

A. Recommendations

“It was … regarded as crucial that the EJN Atlas is kept up-to-date by Member States which did not always appear to be the case.”(AT Report, 3.5.8);

“The EJN should update its website more regularly and consider reinforcing the staff entrusted with this task” (FI Report); “Eurojust should ensure via the EJN Secretariat that the Network's tools are updated and their quality maintained.” (FR Report); “Eurojust should ensure via the EJN Secretariat that information supplied directly by the Member States is updated on the Network site” (FR

Report);

5

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“EJN should keep the judicial tools available on the EJN website regularly updated, in particular the Judicial Atlas” (HR Report); “The EJN tools, especially the webpage, need to be constantly updated and filled with new information. The EJN Secretariat should therefore

complete the library with relevant information on the status of the EU instruments based on the principle of mutual recognition in the field of international cooperation in criminal matters.” (HU, SK Reports)

“Eurojust via the EJN secretariat should closely monitor regular updates of the Atlases on the EJN website” (PL Report); “The Presidency (through [or aided by] the EJN Secretariat [and Eurojust]) should clarify roles and responsibilities of the Member States in the

updating of the data available through the EJN tools and closely monitor the update by Member States” (EE, HU, LT, NL, SK Reports); “Eurojust, through the Secretariat of the European Judicial Network in criminal matters, should: Monitor the regular updating of the EJN website

and in particular of the Atlas and the Fiches Belges” (RO Report); “Eurojust, through the Secretariat of the European Judicial Network in criminal matters, should: Ensure, in cooperation with the Romanian

authorities, the full functionality of the Romanian Atlas on the EJN website” (RO Report); “Continue to consider how to make the most efficient use of Fiches Belges in order to reduce the scope for requests about national legislation and

procedure.” (SI Report); “[Eurojust should] Ensure regular, speedy and quality update of the information provided by the EJN tools, in particular the Atlas” (ES Report); “… the list of contact points at the EJN website is not updated. According to the Slovak authorities, there are two problems with the lack of

updates in the Atlas. First, information is simply missing. The EJN Secretariat has said that they would communicate the information themselves to the Council. Second, there is a technical problem. In the list of countries the Slovak Republic is not listed. The Slovak authorities have contacted the EJN Secretariat but no solution has yet been found. The Council Secretariat confirms that all information received is communicated, also to the EJN.” (SK Report, 6.6.);

“Eurojust should promote the use and the improvement of the EJN website. Eurojust should also ensure appropriate update of the information available on the EJN website and the overall quality and completeness of the information provided” (UK Report);

“Eurojust should improve use of «fiches belges» so that Tools Correspondent could easier complete/update it. This should include an obligation to update them regularly/confirm that the information is still accurate and provide a possibility to add links to other useful resources particular to an individual Member State” (UK Report);

“The EJN tool correspondents together with the EJN Secretariat should keep the list of contact points updated at all times” (Final Report Rec no. 7 last sentence);

6

EJN/2015/10

Annex



“… the ongoing update of the registry should be improved”. (DK Report, 6.5.1); “… a greater role for the EJN secretariat keeping basic information up-to-date on for instance contact points, national correspondents etc. should

be envisaged.” (DK Report, 6.5.1.); “… currently the information on the EJN website is sometimes incomplete, outdated and necessary translations are not provided. These aspects

should be eliminated and the Member States should pay more attention to updating the site and providing as fresh information as possible…” (EE Report, 9);

“… there is scope for improvement in the contact point information, which is often outdated… and does not indicate the person’s job description (just giving the name of the agency is not helpful…,”(FI Report, 6.3.4);

“… the Fiches Belges and the EJN Atlas … only cover certain actions, and the list is not comprehensive. Also, the list of actions is not applicable to all countries.” “It is crucial that the EJN website, the Atlas in particular, is always updated. More assistance from the EJN Secretariat in this regard, e.g. by appointing an additional webmaster in charge of this task, would be viewed as positive.” (AT Report);

“All recognise the importance of the EJN tools. The National Correspondent recognises that the information related to Lithuania on the website has not always been regularly updated. Before the evaluation visit, it had been unclear to the Lithuanian authorities, whether the Tools Correspondent had the administrative rights to update the information on the EJN website. It was clarified during the visit that he has these rights. A regular update will be conducted in the future”. (LT Report, 6.6.);

“For some Member States, information on ATLAS is completely or partially missing.” (PL Report, 6.4); “… The so called back office for the EJN website has not been functioning very well which has resulted in non-accurate data on the website. …

[There is] regret that the tools – and in particular the Atlas- are not regularly updated for some Member States and that, moreover, no indication is available on the website as to the date of the last update. …” (SE Report, 6.5);

7

EJN/2015/10

Annex


1.5. On translation of website

A. Recommendations “Eurojust should examine the possibilities for providing translation in all languages of information contained in the EJN tools” (DE Report); “The EJN website should be launched in all national languages. The EJN should begin to consider this and ways and means to implement it.” (LT

report); “The Commission, Eurojust and EJN should examine the possibilities for providing translation in all languages of information contained in the

EJN tools/e-Justice Portal”. (Final Report Rec No. 24 a)


“… the Austrian authorities criticised that the Atlas language setting, when set to “German”, was sometimes switching back to English or was not available at all due to technical difficulties.”(AT Report, 3.5.8);

“Legal practitioners in the prosecutorial field would also welcome a translation of the EJN website into German.” (DE Report, 6.3.4); “The need for translation into Danish of the website or parts thereof is not of great importance for the Danish authorities”(DK Report, 6.5.1); “There are also some concerns about the plans on translation. There are clear advantages of having all the information translated into all

languages. … According to Sweden, it is better to have high ambitions on creating an English version that is accurate and that works, than to translate bad quality information into many languages. …. The inclusion of a… Freezing Order Wizard would add to its value . “(SE Report, 6.4.1.);

“…local competent authorities maintain that … the website should be translated into Croatian, which would make it much easier to use.” (HR Report, 6.3.4)’’;

8

EJN/2015/10

Annex


1.6. On the EJN library

A. Recommendations

“Eurojust should look into the possibilities for improving and enriching the content of the Library by including summaries of important court decisions, providing translations and installing a search function” (DE Report);

“The EJN Secretariat should therefore complete the library with relevant information on the status of the EU instruments based on the principle of mutual recognition in the field of international cooperation in criminal matters.” (HU and SK Report);


“The information concerning the state of the implementation of the Framework Decisions provided in the Library is sometimes outdated or sometimes not provided at all”. (EE Report, 6.5.1);

“ … certain instruments adopted by the EU which the competent authorities sometimes need to consult should be added to the on-line library, such as the extradition Conventions…” (FR Report, 6.3.5)

“The information offered at the EJN website, in particular the Atlas and the Library, are regarded by German practitioners in the prosecutorial field as very useful and are a regularly-used resource.” ”Moreover, the information made accessible in the Library, in particular the overview of the implementation status of legal instruments in the Member States, is regarded as exceptionally helpful and highly relevant for the reality of legal practice”. “Nonetheless, some practitioners advised that the content of the Library could be enriched by including summaries of important court decisions, providing translations and installing a search function. The Library should be used more in the future. It would be appreciated if the Library could be updated more quickly and enriched with at least a summary in English and possibly other languages of important judicial decisions taken in other Member States (decisions "of principle"). It was also suggested that a search function should be created for the Library” . (DE Report, 6.3.4.)

9

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“…the current tools are considered very useful, especially……and the new Library tool. Nevertheless, the Romanian authorities suggested that there was still room for improvement and further enhancement of the EJN website in order to fully meet the Council’s Conclusions of December 2010 and to respond to new challenges in terms of legislative developments”. (RO Report, 6.3.4),

“The library is of value, but there is a risk that the information in the library becomes inaccurate, if too much information is inserted and at the end not handled properly on a continuous basis”. (SE Report, 6.4.1.)

2. The handling of requests by EJN and Eurojust and the interaction between them

A. Recommendations

Eurojust should consider providing common guidelines on the reference of cases to Eurojust or the EJN to all Member States” (AT Report); “Eurojust and the EJN should collaborate and issue guidelines on referral of cases to Eurojust and the EJN” (DE Report); “Eurojust (aided by the EJN) should collect and, where appropriate, translate and disseminate guidelines issued at national level regarding the

referral of cases either to Eurojust or to the EJN. The definition and adoption of such guidelines should be promoted at national level.”( EE Report);

“Eurojust and the EJN should collect and disseminate guidelines or other material issued at national level on the reference of cases to Eurojust or the EJN, and support and encourage the adoption and issuing of such guidelines and other material at national level.“ (HU Report);

“Eurojust and the EJN should consider cooperating in providing written and easily accessible common guidelines to practitioners on when a case should be referred to the EJN and when it should referred to Eurojust” (IT Report);

“[Eurojust] to collect guidelines and best practices of Member States relating to the respective use of Eurojust and the EJN and, on this basis, provide common guidelines to all Member States on when to refer a case to Eurojust or the EJN. (LV Report)

“Eurojust (aided by the EJN) should collect and, where appropriate, translate and disseminate guidelines issued at national level on the referral of cases either to Eurojust or to the EJN, as well as support and encourage the adoption of such guidelines at national level. Based on this, Eurojust and the EJN should provide common guidelines to all Member States. (LT Report);

“Eurojust, in cooperation with the EJN, should disseminate guidelines issued at national level on the referral of cases either to Eurojust or the EJN and support and encourage the adoption of such guidelines at national level. In the short/ medium term, Eurojust and the EJN should jointly provide such guidelines to all Member States based on Member States' experience” (NL Report);

“Eurojust and the EJN should collect and disseminate guidelines or other material issued at national level on the reference of cases to Eurojust or the EJN, and support and encourage the adoption and issuing of such guidelines and other material at national level.” (SK Report);

10

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“Eurojust should collect and disseminate guidelines issued at national level on the reference of cases to Eurojust or the EJN, and support and encourage the adoption of such guidelines at national level.” (SE Report);

“Eurojust and the EJN should work out better criteria to define whether a case should be handled by Eurojust or the EJN in order to improve the performance of both institutions” (BG Report);

“Eurojust should work out better criteria for determining, as support to the ENCS, whether a case should be handled by Eurojust or by the EJN, in order to improve the performance of both institutions” (EL Report);

(Eurojust and the EJN together should) “Give publicity to the recently adopted joint paper on the assistance in international cooperation in criminal matters for practitioners which explains the respective roles of Eurojust and the EJN” (PT Report);

“The paper produced jointly between Eurojust and the EJN should be “formalised”, adopted and translated into all languages and used as a basis to develop national guidelines for which cases shall be addressed to the EJN or Eurojust. Eurojust and the EJN should collect national practices and should seek to publicise and promote their use at European level” (Final Report Rec No.14).


“It seems that EJN often functions as a ‘first port of call’. If the EJN cannot deal with the case, it is sent on to Eurojust. The functioning of the German EJN seems to have ensured that bilateral and simple cases are not as a rule forwarded to Eurojust but are dealt with at EJN level. This is an example of best practice”. “The preferred approach is to contact the local EJN contact point if there is any doubt about whether and to what extent the EJN or Eurojust should be chosen”. (DE Report);

“…practitioners have observed over the past years that cases already successfully dealt with by the EJN contact points are also being handled through Eurojust channels. The National Members should consult EJN contact points in such cases and ‘divide’ them up accordingly. This could be a solution for avoiding duplication.”(EL Report, 9.2.) ;

“There is good and close cooperation between Eurojust and the EJN. In this respect it proved to be favourable that two of the EJN contact points spent six month turns at the Hungarian Desk of Eurojust working there as seconded national experts. This led to an important insight into the work and functioning of Eurojust and to a better mutual understanding of the respective roles and functions. This is viewed by the expert team as a good practice.”(HU Report, 5.4);

“The team was able to confirm that Luxembourg practitioners can identify the respective roles and areas of responsibility of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network correctly. It is also clear that, in cross-border matters, the judicial authorities generally prefer to contact their

11

EJN/2015/10

Annex


counterparts in other countries directly before calling on the EJN contact points, and only turn to Eurojust as a last resort. This general approach can be highlighted as an example of good practice” (LU Report, 1);

“Both the National Member and the Deputy National Member are contact points for the EJN. Hence cases that can easily be dealt with by the EJN are immediately recognised as such and acted upon accordingly. The representatives from the Maltese national desk also considered it appropriate to consult the EJN Secretariat in cases that required such direct communication.” (MT Report, 6.3.1.);

“While the evaluators were aware of the specific characteristics owing to the size of Malta as a jurisdiction, they nevertheless took note of the fact that it was a good example where the combining of the roles and structures of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network (EJN) ensures economy of resources and optimal coordination. The evaluators therefore deem this as a good practice of which other Member States should take note of.” (MT Report, 6.4.);

“The roles of the EJN and Eurojust are complimentary but very distinct because Eurojust should be focussing on complex multilateral cases while the EJN is designed to deal with smaller bilateral issues. The EJN can be a useful tool for filtering issues that would allow Eurojust to concentrate on its mandated tasks.” (MT Report, 9.2. and 9.3. respectively);

‘There is close cooperation and consultation between the National Member and national EJN contact points … In 2012, eight cases were referred by the National Member to the national EJN contact points while 12 cases were referred by the national EJN contact points … to the National Member. Moreover, in specific cases the national EJN contact points advised judges or prosecutors to consult or address requests to the National Member at Eurojust.” (RO Report, 6.3.1);

“Romania also suggested that participation of the Eurojust National Members in the EJN meetings (plenary, national and regional) and vice versa should be encouraged. In their view the EJN’s potential to increase the dialogue between judges and prosecutors, to build mutual trust, to improve knowledge of other legal systems and to help share practical experiences has to be further explored and taken advantage of; in terms of resources, the EJN Secretariat would benefit from the allocation of all appropriate human and financial resources.” (RO report, 9.2.);

“The EJN set up in the Slovak Republic is a good example to take after, including its regular meetings and the set up of its sub-network. The fact that the national member himself cooperates with EJN is a good practice. Decisions as regards addressing an issue to the EJN or Eurojust are taken on a case-by-case basis (SK Report, 1 Executive summary);

“The Slovak desk at Eurojust has repeatedly contacted the EJN. … On a regular basis, the national member at Eurojust communicates with the main contact points of the EJN in the Slovak Republic.” (SK Report, 6.5). “The fact that the national member himself cooperates with the EJN is a good practice”. (SK report, 6.6.);

12

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“The national correspondent for EJN and the National Member communicate regularly on case allocation and other relevant issues which could be considered a model of good practice. …” (SI Report, 3.5) “The National Member is regularly in contact with the national correspondent for EJN and regularly participates in the meetings of EJN contact points. She cooperates on casework with all of the EJN contact points in Slovenia. The national correspondent for EJN and the National Member jointly organised training in Slovenia concerning international judicial cooperation. The evaluation team was also informed that Slovenia attends regional meetings of EJN when they are organised, for example, the annual meeting organised by Austria and finds them particularly useful”. (SI Report, 6.3);

“… the Dutch show that… there is frequent contact between the NM and the EJN network. Discussions regularly take place on the question of whether a specific case should be dealt with bilaterally through the IRC or whether Eurojust should be involved. In addition, the deputy NM is one of the two NCs for the EJN… This level of integration is seen as a major advantage in practice, which prevents unnecessary referrals between authorities.” (NL Report, 6.3.1) “The Dutch authorities would welcome follow-up on the paper dealing with the allocation of cases between Eurojust and the EJN drafted under the Danish Presidency. The Dutch authorities consider that in general too many small bilateral cases are referred to Eurojust and should be referred to the EJN instead.” (NL Report, 6.4);

“Further integration of the work of the EJN and Eurojust is desirable, in the sense that the cooperation between the two should be improved, e.g. by promoting more personal unions for the persons who are active in the EJN and Eurojust, including the CPs, and shortening lines of communication with national authorities. (NL report, 9.2.)

3. The improvement of international judicial cooperation as outcome of EJN meetings

A. Recommendations

“The EJN Secretariat should consider collecting and publishing recommendations made by practitioners during plenary meetings of the EJN, and continue supporting regional meetings of EJN contact points” (CZ Report);

“The EJN Secretariat should organise meetings more focused on the resolution of concrete problems that hamper judicial cooperation within the EU…” (CZ Report).


13

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“… all potential synergy benefits should be leveraged. In operational terms, having the same thing handled over by several bodies should be avoided. Seminars and meetings are often held on the same topics; it might be possible to introduce more coordination in this area (FI report, 9.2);

“The cooperation with Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland is considered excellent. The contact points established in these countries respond, in the majority of cases, immediately after receiving a request for information. The major advantage is the fact that the EJN contact point have met other contact points in person at the EJN plenary meetings, which has an effect on the effectiveness and speedy handling of the requests.” (SK Report, 6.5 & 9.1);

“The plenary meetings of the EJN are regarded as essential to establish personal contacts between contact points from all Member States ”. (NL Report, 6.4).

“…they would prefer for more practical problems to be discussed in EJN meetings. They gave as an example the practical study on controlled delivery organised during the Czech presidency of the Council in 2009. No outcome of the study (in form of a table) has been added to the EJN website. It seems that, for example, the CARIN network is more useful (CZ Report, 6.3.4).

4. On raising awareness and training

A. Recommendations

“The EJN Secretariat should consider devoting more time and resources to promoting the work of the EJN in an effective and recurrent manner” (EL Report);

“The EJN (and the EJTN) should continue to organise technical and language courses for practitioners in the field of international cooperation” (IT Report);

[Eurojust] to continue organising, on a regular basis, dedicated marketing and information activities for practitioners on cooperation with Eurojust and the EJN. (LV Report).

[Eurojust] to take any appropriate measure to raise practitioners’ awareness of the usefulness of the EJN and of its tools.”(LV Report). “The evaluation showed that “roadshows” and “promotion tours” are efficient ways of spreading the knowledge about the capacities and

potential of Eurojust and the EJN used by many Member States. This should be continued”. (Final Report Rec No. 23).


14

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“More mandatory training , including, where appropriate, on language skills, should be considered for police officers, public prosecutors and judges, who are likely to deal with cross border criminality and mutual assistance (EL Report, 8.3.);

“… one of the contact points from the Ministry participated at the language training organised by the EJN Secretariat and ERA in The Hague in November 2012.”(HU Report, 7.2);

“… there are contact persons with expertise in international cooperation at both the regional and the local levels. The presence of such prosecutors or supervisors of international cases at the regional level has increased the number of MLAs. This is identified by the evaluation team as a best practice.”(HU Report, 7.3);

“The evaluation team considers that training activities should be enhanced and further developed not only in the general area of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters but also with reference to Eurojust and the EJN.” (LV Report, 8.1) “It is suggested that Eurojust continue to offer dedicated marketing and information activities for practitioners on cooperation with Eurojust and the EJN on a regular basis… ”. (LV Report, 9.2.);

“… some of the contact points-prosecutors of the EJN took part in the training of contact points which was arranged by the Secretariat of the European Judicial Network on 18-22 October 2010 in Spain. The meetings of the contact points are assessed positively because they provide a possibility for the contact points to share their experience, learn the specific characteristics of the legal systems of other countries, enjoy informal communication, etc.” (LT Report, 3.4);

“… prosecutors and officers of pre-trial investigation agencies get information about the activities of Eurojust and the EJN (by post, telephone or email) in the course of everyday activities of a prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s General Office, forming uniform practice for communication on legal issues, as well as sharing best practice. As regards the EJN, a letter-guide, prepared by legal experts of the Ministry of Justice, was disseminated to courts on the implementation and application of EU instruments in criminal matters, providing information on the EJN. Information on the EJN can also be found on the website of the Ministry of Justice….” (LT Report, 8.1);

“In recent years judges and prosecutors have taken part in training activities including the following:- courses run by [ERA], particularly on European criminal law, and including study trips to Europol, Eurojust and the EJN;- continuing training offered by France’s National School for the Judiciary, particularly on international cooperation in criminal matters;- continuing training activities given by the German Judicial Academy;

- continuing training activities given by Belgium’s Judicial Training Institute.These international training activities also provide opportunities to establish contact with judges and prosecutors from other European courts.” (LU report, 6.3.2)

“… participation in exchange programmes and work placements at foreign courts is encouraged”. (LU Report, 6.3.2); “At national level, training for the national member and for EJN contact points is generally given by their respective predecessors or by serving

members. In particular, the trainers pass on information about the EJN website, the necessary log-in names and passwords, and the founding

15

EJN/2015/10

Annex


texts applicable to EJN…. The contact points, the national correspondent and the tool correspondent attend courses within the EJN such as “Legal English for Contact Points” or the training provided by the EJN secretariat’s IT department on the website’s back office”. (LU Report, 8.2.);

“The evaluators were informed that no specific training for Maltese officials on Eurojust would be needed as they obtain on the job experience in addition to their normal training. They evaluation team noted that material is distributed during seminars. However, the evaluators recommend that formal training to be considered since such training can enhance awareness to facilitate practical judicial cooperation, particularly through Eurojust and the EJN.” (MT Report, 8.3);

“The National School for Judges and Prosecutors runs regular trainings on MLA…, as well as general trainings on the application of EU law in domestic systems are also run by the School. Moreover, specific (targeted) trainings on legal framework concerning Eurojust and EJN have been initiated at the beginning of 2013. The level of knowledge of practitioners on the mission and operation of both Eurojust and the EJN leaves room for improvement. Planned, scheduled and benchmark-measurable training seems to be needed. A dedicated intranet site offering information on legal provisions, instructions and guidelines would be helpful there. …” (PL Report, 8.2.);

“In Sweden, all newly employed public prosecutors undergo 15 weeks of training during their three first years as prosecutors. The training includes sessions on international cooperation. … Eurojust and EJN are dealt with during those sessions. … Apart from training, national authorities in Sweden are made aware of the existence and role of Eurojust and of the EJN (including the EJN website) in different ways. There is information about Eurojust and the EJN available on the Intranets of the Prosecution Authority and the Economic Crime Authority. Furthermore, news flashes and highlights concerning important changes and news regarding Eurojust and the EJN are regularly published on these intranets. …” (SE report, 8.1);

“There is no specific training for the members of the desk or the EJN CPs. However, only prosecutors specialised in international cooperation are appointed as the EJN CPs.” (NL Report, 8.1)

At the moment there is no intranet available for the practitioners. All the information is to be found in open source on the Internet. Such an intranet would bring together all relevant information on legal texts, instructions, guidelines, handbooks, forms, case law and other available tools. Members of the expert team know from personal professional experience that practitioners need such tools in their daily work. (IT Report, 8.1.2);

5. On collecting statistics related to the EJN workload

16

EJN/2015/10

Annex


A. Recommendations

Eurojust, via the EJN Secretariat, should encourage the Member States to collect data and statistics concerning the number and types of cases handled by EJN contact points in order to monitor their potential and to implement necessary measures when there is a need to strengthen their capacity. The EJN should seek to facilitate the collection of its statistics, and refine its statistics to make it easier to determine the Member States' use of the network” (NL Report).


“ As regards in the first instance the number of cases dealt with annually by the EJN’s contact points, the figures are particularly subject to variation depending on the geographical areas under consideration, and it is difficult to give a representative average”. (FR Report, 6.4)

6. On the functioning of Contact Points and criteria for their appointment

A. Recommendations

“The Presidency (aided by Eurojust via the EJN Secretariat) should monitor the fulfilment of requirements by the Member States when designating contact points, and monitor the regular and proper updating of the list of contact points” (FI, HU, NL, SE reports);

“The Presidency (through the EJN Secretariat) should monitor the respect of requirements by the Member States when designating contact points, and monitor the regular and proper update of the list of contact points.” (LT Report, SK Report);

“The EJN should continue to provide language training to EJN contact points.” (SK Report); “The EJN tool correspondents together with the EJN Secretariat should keep the list of contact points updated at all times” (Final Report Rec no. 7

last sentence);


17

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“According to the information provided by the Estonian authorities, the criteria for nominating a seconded national expert or an EJN contact point may vary, and it is difficult to assess what the objective requirements are.” According to the evaluation team, the EJN should also consist of operational judicial authorities. In Estonia however there is only one operational contact point among the judicial authorities, namely the state prosecutor. No representation for instance of judges or district level prosecutors is currently foreseen….” (EE Report, 3.5) ;

“More consistency regarding the EJN contact points in the other Member States would be desirable from the point of view of the Danish authorities. They change often, especially in the bigger Member States where not all contact points can travel to every plenary meeting, which makes the formation of stable personal contacts difficult. The Danish authorities stressed the importance of choosing the contact points according to their language skills and availability” (DK Report, 6.6., FI report 6.4);

“The Finnish authorities deemed it especially important to ensure that contact points are persons who have sufficient language skills and are practical experts in the field of criminal justice or criminal procedural law. It was also regarded as imperative that contact points monitor their e-mail regularly and actually respond to messages received.” “The experts would see certain benefits if the Council Presidency (with the assistance of the EJN Secretariat) would monitor that the Member States comply with the standards when designating contact points for the EJN and monitor the regular and correct updating of the list of contact points.” (FI Report, 6.3.4.)’;

“The internal rotation of personnel is quite intensive, and not all staff have the necessary experience of these issues. According to the evaluators, this situation also underlines the need for continuous training and exchange of expertise, to get all persons involved up to speed, as it were, as soon as possible. It also underlines the need for relying on systems and set procedures, and not only on persons and personal contacts .” (LT report, 6.6.)’;

“No Contact Point has been appointed within the judiciary, a deficiency which should be remedied.” (PT Report, 3.6.6); “A problem identified during the mission in the Slovak Republic is that contact points and national correspondents in other Member States often

change frequently which makes it impossible to know who is your counterpart. The Slovak Republic highlights the need for appointing EJN contact points over longer time periods, taking into account during their selection their expertise and linguistic skills .” (SK Report, 1). “… the Slovak Republic suggests that, in individual Member States, consideration should be given to the more enduring membership of contact points in the EJN, for instance for the period of two, three or four years. Very frequent replacements of persons acting as contact points hinder the cooperation from becoming swifter and more effective. According to the Slovak Republic, the selection of contact points should be based on the representative’s possession of expertise and linguistic skills, taking into account ‘ the time reserved’, but also the human qualities necessary for this activity.” (SK report, 9). “ … the experts suggest that the EJN contact points in the Member States should meet the requirements suggested in the non-binding Guidelines for the Selection of contact points of the European Judicial Network (PLEN2 2007/2)”. (SK report, 9.1.);

“More continuity regarding the EJN contact points in other Member States would be desirable from the point of view of the Dutch authorities. They change often, which makes stable personal contacts difficult. The Dutch authorities stressed the importance of choosing contact points according to their language skills and availability.” (NL Report, 6.4).

18

EJN/2015/10

Annex


7. On work planning and management of the EJN

Recommendations

“The EJN should use Trio Presidency programmes or similar planning tools in order to ensure planning and consistency between Presidencies” (NL Report);

“In view of criticism raised against the results of the work of the EJN Secretariat, Eurojust should ensure that the work of the EJN Secretariat is organised in a manner which ensures the efficient functioning of the Network.” (SE Report)

19

EJN/2015/10

Annex


Part II

Inventory of recommendations addressed to the Member States regarding the EJN/Eurojust

Recommendations referred to in point 1 - On the appointment and functioning of EJN contact points

1.1. Recommendations to all Member States

“The Member States should ensure that the designated EJN contact points have the necessary qualifications, in particular language skills, and have enough time to carry out their tasks as efficiently as possible;” (similar recommendations contained in DE Report);

“As regards the EJN, the Member States should ensure that the designated contact points meet the necessary qualifications in accordance with the EJN Decision and, where appropriate, provide language training.” (SE Report), similar recommendation in PL Report;

“The Member States should consider the establishment of a mechanism to monitor at national level the technical and linguistic skills and performance of EJN contact points” (IT Report);

“In order to ensure a proper functioning of the EJN, a longer time of service for EJN contact points would be highly desired. Longer serving contact points would guarantee more experience and usually more readiness to cooperate. Accordingly, the Member States should avoid too many changes in the list of EJN contact points.” (SK Report).

“The Member States should ensure the proper financial and human resources to the EJN contact points so that they can fulfil the extra work coming from the EJN. When choosing contact points, language skills and readiness to cooperate internationally should be in focus, in line with the requirements suggested in the non-binding Guidelines for the Selection of contact points of the European Judicial Network”; (SK Report);

“The Member States should consider the German practise combining the role of EJN contact points and Eurojust national correspondents as an example of best practise”; (DE Report; the same recommendation in the IT Report);

“The Member States should, like the Netherlands, appoint at least one member of the national desk at Eurojust as a contact point for the EJN” (NL Report);

20

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“Other Member States should take note of the good practice where, while taking into account the specificities of Malta’s size, combining of the roles and structures of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network (EJN) ensures economy of resources and optimal coordination;” (MT

“Member States are requested to take note of the practice of the Office for International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters whereby the French contact points invited to attend meetings of the European Judicial Network are rotated” (FR Report);

“Similar to Hungary, Member States are recommended to appoint EJN contact points for a longer period of time. Longer serving contact points would guarantee more experience and usually more readiness to cooperate. Accordingly, the Member States should avoid too many changes in the list of EJN contact points.”(HU Report);

1.2. Recommendations to individual Member States

CY: “In view of their prosecutorial powers, the opportunity of having EJN contact points from the police and custom authorities should be carefully considered.”;

CZ: “Consider the possibility of appointing judges and prosecutors from regional level as EJN contact points or contact points of networks referred to in Article 12(2(d)) of the Eurojust Decision”;

EE: “Choose the EJN contacts in accordance with the allocated tasks and professional profiles. The participation of both prosecutors and judges should be considered. Guidelines could be drafted for the selection of function-based contact persons including the definition of their tasks and for determining participation in EJN meetings.”;

HU: “Hungary is recommended to establish written guidelines for the nomination and functioning of EJN contact points, especially as more contact points are foreseen to be appointed. When choosing contact points, language skills and readiness to cooperate internationally should be in focus, in line with the requirements suggested in the non-binding Guidelines for the Selection of contact points of the European Judicial Network (PLEN2 2007/2). Furthermore, Hungary should ensure the proper financial and human resources to the EJN contact points so that they can fulfil the extra work resulting from the engaging in the EJN, including a possible reduction of the “regular work” of the EJN contact points.”;

IT: (Should) “Involve the Ministry of Justice, in its capacity as coordination unit, in the selection and oversight of EJN contact points activities or othervise consider the establishment of a mechanism to monitor at national level the technical and linguistic skills and performance of EJN contact points”; “consider also whether it would be advisable to nominate as EJN contact points prosecutors at first instance or judges”;

21

EJN/2015/10

Annex


PT: (Should) “Appoint an EJN contact point for judges and develop associated actions and tools specifically addressing judges to raise their general awareness and enhance their direct involvement in the domain under evaluation (e.g. a specific website on international judicial cooperation and the possibilities offered by Eurojust and the EJN respectively, national and local seminars and meetings, fact-sheets etc.;

SI: “Slovenia is also encouraged to provide up-to-date information on the EJN contact points to the EJN Secretariat.”

2. Recommendations referred to in point 2 – On issuing national guidelines on the use of EJN or Eurojust


“The paper produced jointly between Eurojust and the EJN should be "formalised", adopted and translated into all languages and used as the basis to develop national guidelines for which cases should be addressed to the EJN or Eurojust. Eurojust and the EJN should collect national practices and should seek to publicise and promote their use at European level.” (Rec 14 from the Final Report);

“Member States should recognize the usefulness of guidelines/instructions on when to refer a case to Eurojust or an EJN contact point” (BE, BG, DE, NL Reports);

“Should produce written guidelines providing updated, simple and practical guidance to assist the competent authorities to find the best solution for the allocation of cases between Eurojust and the EJN”.


CY : “Cyprus is advised to develop clear guidelines for competent national authorities on when a case should be dealt with by Eurojust or EJN as these would greatly help practitioners in the field.” ;

DK: (Should) “Provide guidelines defining the different roles of Eurojust and the EJN and supporting in allocating the right cases to each.”; NL: (Should) “provide its practitioners with instructions or practical and simple guidelines on when to refer a case to Eurojust or the EJN (see

5.8.) and encourage the ENCS to define and assist in determining whether a specific case should be dealt with the assistance of the EJN or Eurojust”.

22

EJN/2015/10

Annex


3. Recommendations referred to in point 3 – On raising awareness and training


“Awareness of existing EU legal tools, cooperation mechanisms and bodies needs to be increased among practitioners. Cooperation within the framework of Europol, Eurojust, the EJN and OLAF should be enhanced; their capabilities and potential added value for investigations need to be promoted and explained to practitioners, especially law enforcement officers and prosecutors.” (Rec no. 18 from the Final Report);

“a) Member States should continue and enhance efforts in training and raising the awareness of judges, prosecutors and judicial police authorities about the respective competences and activities of Eurojust and EJN.

b) As part of this, those Member States who have not yet done so are encouraged to consider the merits of setting up a dedicated national website (intranet for practitioners in judicial co-operation in criminal matters) which would bring together all relevant information on legal texts, instructions, guidelines and other available tools which would be useful at national level without duplicating the EJN website. Information on Eurojust and the EJN should be disseminated, including the contact details for the national member, EJN contact points and the ENCS members. c) All Member States should establish training curricula and enable and encourage practitioners to participate in such training. As far as possible, training should be conducted jointly, by all actors that have a role to play in the area of MLA and mutual recognition cooperation. “ (Rec no. 22 a-c from the Final Report);

“The Member States should consider as an example of best practice the operation of the German intranets providing information on MLA issues, the EJN and Eurojust;” (DE Report);

“Should increase efforts on awareness raising about the usefulness of the EJN and continue promoting regional meetings of contact points of the EJN from other countries” (SK Report);

23

EJN/2015/10

Annex


“Should consider whether additional awareness-raising regarding EJN and its tools (e.g. the Judicial Atlas) be conducted, in particular at the level of the courts”; “Should complement the laudable of the Public Prosecution Service at the Regional Criminal Court in Vienna on mutual legal assistance for new prosecutors with references to Eurojust and the EJN”; (SK Report);

“Should strengthen the training of prosecutors, judges and other practitioners on international judicial cooperation, covering both Eurojust and the EJN”; (SK Report);

“EJN should continue to provide language training to EJN contact points.”(SK Report).


BE: “Should introduce training on the possibilities offered by Eurojust, EJN and other instruments of international cooperation, particularly for the local courts and prosecution officers”;

BG: “Should increase awareness on the EJN and the available EJN tools among judges, for instance by disseminating guidelines or by exploring the possibility to task the International Relations Department at the SJC with providing support to practitioners or by appointing a judge as an EJN contact point;” “consider establishing an internal national network of judges specialising in international cooperation” ;

CZ: (Should) “further raise the awareness of judges and prosecutors about judicial cooperation including the assistance that can be provided by Eurojust and EJNfurther raise the awareness of judges and prosecutors about judicial cooperation including the assistance that can be provided by Eurojust and EJN.”;

HR: (Should) “organise training courses for practitioners once the 2000 MLA Convention and its Protocol enter into force and on rules regarding allocation of cases to Eurojust or the EJN for practitioners involved in MLA requests (including judges and police officers)”

EL: (Should) “enhance efforts on training and awareness-raising for judges, public prosecutors and the police authorities regarding the respective competences and activities of Eurojust and the EJN” ;

EE: (Should) “Promote and encourage the use of the EJN website among practitioners and facilitate the provision of passwords to all relevant authorities and users.”;

FI: “Should consider intensifying the information at local and district level about the possibilities of the EJN and its structure as well as about the role of Eurojust”;

DE: “Germany should continue specific training programmes for practitioners dealing with international judicial cooperation and in particular extend such trainings for judges;”

IT: “Continue and enhance efforts in training, raising the awareness of judges, prosecutors and the police authorities regarding the respective competences and activities of Eurojust and EJN; in this regard, the setting up of a dedicated national intranet site (intranet for

24

EJN/2015/10

Annex


practitioners in judicial cooperation in criminal matters), which would bring together all relevant information on legal texts, instructions, guidelines and other available tools, would be very useful”;

PL: (Should) “Consider setting up intranet solutions for the dissemination of information on Eurojust and the EJN to practitioners. The advantages of intranet over individual letters and emails are that the information is permanently accessible in one place and that it is quick and efficient; a dedicated site containing all applicable instruments, acts, instructions and guidelines notably describing the functions of Eurojust and EJN and situations where contact could be made with either Eurojust or EJN revised in 2013, would be very useful.”; “Continue and enhance the supply of regular training on international cooperation in general and on Eurojust and the EJN in particular, for prosecutors, judges, police officers and personnel from the Ministry of Justice throughout their career”;

PT: “More generally, (should) further develop the excellent training sessions hosted by the Centre for Judicial Studies in order to spread as widely as possible all legal and practical information in relation to the role and tasks of EJN and Eurojust and, in particular, why, when and how to contact Eurojust for support in cross-border cases”;

RO: (Should) “Continue efforts to increase the possibilities of ongoing training on matters related to Eurojust and the EJN for all practitioners concerned (prosecutors, judges and police) in all regions of Romania”;

ES: “Given that continued training is not mandatory, consider how best to reach practitioners throughout Spain to promote awareness and provide information regarding international cooperation, Eurojust, EJN and JITs”;

SK: “The use of Eurojust and EJN by the courts should be promoted and enhanced. There should be a focus on the spread of information towards judges to allow them to make the most use of both Eurojust and EJN when international cooperation is needed during the trial stage.”

4. Recommendations referred to in point 4 – On the organisation of regional and national EJN meetings


“Occasional national meetings between EJN-contact points to exchange information and best practices should be held in Member States that have a number of them.” (Rec no. 6 final from the Final Report).

“Member States should take note of the regular EJN regional meetings organised by the Austrian EJN contact points that are a good example how to foster good relationships with contact points of other countries (AT Report);

25

EJN/2015/10

Annex



FR: “Given the number of EJN contact points and their geographical distribution, more regular consultation between them should be organised at national and regional level. More meetings should be organised, emphasis should be laid on the importance of statistics on cases dealt with in the Network and language courses for contact points should be promoted”;

HU: “Hungary should reconsider the need of arranging national meetings between EJN contact points, in light of the expected increase in the number of EJN contact points in the country. In general, steps should be taken to safeguard and possibly increase the frequency of face-to-face meetings with a view to increasing the overall efficiency of the system.

FI: “ It would be important to receive information well ahead of time about the agenda of regular meetings organised by the Presidency of the Council of the EU or the EJN Secretariat, so that participants can better prepare for the meeting.” “ A national EJN meeting was held in The Hague in 2012, giving the Finnish EJN contact points a possibility to visit the EJN Secretariat and Eurojust. For this meeting, funding was received from the EJN. The application process for funding from the EJN was regarded as easy and smooth.” (6.3.4)

6. Recommendations referred to in point 6 - On collecting statistical data on EJN activities in the Member States


“All Member States should seek to collect data and statistics concerning the number and types of cases handled by the EJN contact points in order to get a clearer view of the caseload and to implement necessary measures when there is a need to strengthen their capacity” (NL Report).

26

EJN/2015/10

Annex


7. Recommendations referred to in point 7 - On the internal judicial organisation, ENCS and cooperation with other networks


“… in light of the fact that the EJN has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with IberRED, the preferred means of contacting public prosecution offices and judicial authorities in Latin America is the EJN, since it ensures a very quick and uncomplicated flow of information .” (DE Report)

“It is recommended to the Member States concerned to consider establishing international sections /contact points in courts in charge of assisting and giving advice in MLA matters, including Eurojust and EJN” (PL Report);

“In cases where no specific legislation has been deemed necessary to implement the Eurojust Decisions, Member States should consider making specific reference to Eurojust and the EJN in any future legislation on MLA cooperation [e.g. in connection with the implementation of Directive 2014/41/EU (EIO). This will provide clarity and visibility to Eurojust and the EJN as well as ensure that all stakeholders are fully aware of the obligations arising from the consolidated Eurojust Decision” (Rec no. 2 from the Final Report);

“In order to ensure cohesion between the EJN contact points and Eurojust national correspondents to strengthen the privileged relations between the EJN and Eurojust and avoid the duplication of work, when establishing the ENCS, Member States should include all ministries/bodies dealing with cross-border judicial cooperation and consider widening the membership of the ENCS to include key senior stakeholders concerned with serious or organised crime.” (Rec no. 4 b from the Final Report);

27

ejn-crimjust.europa.eu€¦ · web viewthe ejn secretariat should, in view of needs raised by...

Documents