On Thursday 11 January, the civil liberties committee of the European Parliament adopted its negotiating stance with the Council of the EU on the draft regulation providing for a mutual recognition mechanism on decisions taken by member states relating to the freezing and confiscation of criminal assets (see EUROPE 11694).
“The committee adopted an ambitious position that will speed up confiscation and freezing of assets between member states with tight deadlines, leading to a more powerful European response in this key field”, said the rapporteur, Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE, France), whose report was adopted by a very large majority (47 to 2 with one abstention).
Although, on the member states’ side, the form that the legal instrument should take had given rise to debate, namely whether there should be a regulation rather than a directive (see EUROPE 11920), on Parliament's side, MEPs felt that a regulation would give greater clarity and legal security by eliminating the difficulties linked to transposition into national systems.
In particular, it was agreed that the deadlines for member states’ execution of decisions to freeze or confiscate should be shorter than those proposed by the European Commission, reducing them from 60 to 20 days. This is so that criminals do not have the time to transfer their assets. The text adopted nonetheless sets out that this delay can be postponed, for instance if confiscation could jeopardise a legal investigation underway.
Like the Council, MEPs made the compensation of victims a priority by placing them at the top of the list for receiving an indemnity when the confiscated assets are distributed. In the event of confiscation of an amount higher than €10,000, the text also provides for the money remaining after compensation to be shared out between the member state of issue and the member state of implementation up to 70% and 30% respectively.
The Council adopted its position early December 2017 (see EUROPE 11922), which means that, once Parliament’s approach is endorsed by the plenary and the mandate accepted by the same, inter-institutional negotiations may begin. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana).