Following the fourth round of inter-institutional 'trialogue' negotiations on the draft regulation providing for a mutual recognition mechanism for decisions to freeze and confiscate assets of criminal origin made by the member states, the reasons for the disagreement between the co-legislators are starting to be clarified (see EUROPE 12030).
It is the wording of the non-recognition and non-execution clause concerning decisions to freeze or confiscate these assets based on failure to respect fundamental rights that is the problem, several sources told us on Thursday 31 May.
As this is an absolute 'red line' for Parliament, the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the EU then tabled a compromise text, the wording of which was approved on Tuesday 29 May by the national ambassadors to the EU (Coreper).
Compared to the previous version (see EUROPE 12027), a few changes have been made to the recital on non-recognition, mainly to refer explicitly to the rights covered – by recommendation of the legal services of the Council – namely, rights to redress, a fair trial and defence.
This same clarification seems to be a problem as Parliament is reported to favour more general wording referring to article 6 of the Treaty, which is the first version proposed by the Presidency in its compromise text.
The co-legislators have given themselves until June to agree, ahead of a forthcoming political 'trialogue'. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)