The Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the EU and representatives from the European Parliament are due to meet on Thursday 14 June. This meeting will provide an opportunity to again attempt to reach an agreement on the draft regulation for introducing a mutual recognition mechanism for decisions on the freezing and confiscation of criminal assets, taken by the member states.
It should be pointed out that source of the failure of the most recent trialogue negotiations on 30 May last (see EUROPE 12031) can be located in the non-recognition and non-implementing clause for decisions on the freezing and confiscation of criminal assets based on the non-respect of fundamental rights.
The text put on the table by the Presidency effectively and explicitly explains the rights covered by this clause, namely, the rights to an effective remedy, a fair trial and defence. It is this precision that posed the problem with Parliament, which wanted “an open list” so that no rights were excluded.
In a new compromise text dated 12 June of which EUROPE has obtained a copy, the Presidency proposed re-establishing the broader reference to article 6 of the Treaty and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights included in a previous version (see EUROPE 12027), while retaining the reference to these three rights in particular.
These rights are also included in recital 26c, which explains that rights of ownership, on the other hand, should not be relevant in the context of this clause given that the freezing and confiscation of assets necessarily implies interference in the area of ownership and that the necessary guarantees are already included in the regulation.
Although the compromise does provide Parliament with an open list, the Presidency considers that the many references to “exceptional situations”, “clear violation” and “elements of specific proof” as well as the particular attention focusing on the three rights, ensure that this text is a “reasonable” compromise.
On Wednesday morning 13 June, the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU (Coreper) examined the text. According to the information we have received they called on the experts to rework it before proceeding to another examination later in the day. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)