At the end of the second interinstitutional negotiation on the proposal for a regulation on the digitisation of cross-border judicial cooperation and access to justice (see EUROPE 12844/12), which took place on Thursday 25 May, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU remain divided on three main points: the replacement of implementing acts (articles 12, 15 and 16), procedural deadlines (articles 12, 24 and 25), which the European Parliament would like to shorten, and access to infrastructure and the consent of suspects in the use of videoconferencing (articles 7 and 8).
The European Parliament therefore wants the power to adopt implementing acts – i.e. under a comitology procedure with the participation of national experts – to be replaced by a power to adopt delegated acts, over which the European Parliament has extensive rights of control, including the power of veto.
On this point, MEPs came up against the positions of the Commission and the Council.
In addition, the European Parliament supports the insertion of a new rule in Article 8, strengthening the procedural rights of suspects, accused persons and sentenced persons as regards their informed consent to the use of video-conferencing, as is already the case for children. According to a source close to the matter, it is on this last, more political, point that discussions have crystallised.
MEPs believe that participation in a hearing by videoconference should be allowed provided that the consent of a suspect, accused or convicted person is given voluntarily and unequivocally and that the competent authority organising the hearing by videoconference or other remote communication technology has verified this consent before starting the hearing.
The European Parliament also insisted on accessibility, asking that the regulation allow any person directly involved in the proceedings who is in another Member State to use videoconferencing. According to MEPs, the competent authorities should provide suspects, defendants or sentenced persons with information on the procedure to be followed in order to conduct a hearing by videoconference, including the right to interpretation and the right of access to legal counsel, before these persons are required to consent to or refuse the use of videoconferencing.
The next interinstitutional meeting is scheduled for 6 June. However, given the lack of progress at this latest trilogue, we have been told by sources close to the matter that the negotiations will focus more on technical clarifications.
To read the four-column document summarising the parties’ positions: https://aeur.eu/f/73x (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)