[INFO/MainProcess] end of crawl [0, 0]
[INFO/MainProcess] process shutting down
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0454(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0309(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2078(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0077(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2688(RSP)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0163(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2035(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0290(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0272(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0147(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2304(IMM)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0302(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2298(REG)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2257(REG)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2309(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2039(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2310(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2274(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0065(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2096(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0066(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0084(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0013(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0159(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2086(DEC)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0134(NLE)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0120(NLE)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2117(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2033(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] updating 2012/2033(INI) - Alleged transportation and illegal detention of prisoners in European countries by the CIA: follow-up of the European Parliament TDIP Committee report
[INFO/MainProcess] [
{
"data": {
"date": "2012-08-02T00:00:00",
"docs": [
{
"type": "Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading",
"title": "A7-0266/2012"
}
],
"body": "EP",
"type": "Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading"
},
"type": "added",
"path": [
"activities",
5
]
}
]
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2135(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0073(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0053(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0446(APP)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0817(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0460(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0452(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0170(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2246(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2086(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2081(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0225(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2312(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0184(APP)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0410(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2287(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0194(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0349(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0348(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2003/0269(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0450(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2012(REG)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0059(NLE)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2047(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0074(NLE)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0099(NLE)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2080(REG)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2691(RSP)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2586(RSP)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2540(RSP)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0018(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2100(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2129(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2119(DEC)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0901B(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2137(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2112(IMM)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0165(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2069(ACI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2033(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0264(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0260(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0197(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0347(APP)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0098(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0820(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0388(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0308(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0290(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0310(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0169(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0186(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0180(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0168(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0142(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/2043(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0123(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0080(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0071(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0177(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0137(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2006/0048(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0176(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0261(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0027(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0032(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0084(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0154(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0151(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0361(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0040(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0370(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0022(APP)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0441(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2011(BUD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2308(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2102(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0073(NLE)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0420(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2044(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2114(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2311(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2662(RSP)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2146(IMM)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2317(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2143(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2136(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2063(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0146(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0108(NLE)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2048(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0334(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0813(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0192(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0174(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0121(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0095(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0269(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0248(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2061(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0164(APP)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2111(DEC)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0049(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2128(IMM)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0814(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0066(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0019(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/2239(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0270(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0139(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0073(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2003/0266(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2005/0089(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2005/0080(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0115(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0431(APP)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0082(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2087(DEC)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2037(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0113(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0040(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2007/0231(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2007/0078(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2007/0049(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2007/0055(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2007/0024(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0011(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0358(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2005/0086(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0122(NLE)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2005/0254(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2005/0121(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2004/0281(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=1998/0025(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0102(CNS)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0150(COD)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2005/0141(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2041(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2065(INI)&l=en
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2003(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0095(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0354(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0353(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0352(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0349(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0815(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0033(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0029(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0395(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0312(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0289(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2010/0048(APP)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0165(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0063(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0190(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0187(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0155(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2009/0115(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2006/0086(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2006/0135(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2003/0246(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2002/0246(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2000/0326(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2184(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0357(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0350(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2313(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0006(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2006/0165(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2002/0041(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2003/0268(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=1998/0031(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0154(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0200(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0037(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2007/0256(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0027(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=1995/0057(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2255(DEC)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2000(BUD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2008/0171(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0416(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2265(DEC)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0183(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0356(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0414(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2005/0073(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0429(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0116(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0432(CNS)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2005/0078(NLE)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2193(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2005/0085(COD)
[INFO/MainProcess] scrape http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/2291(INI)
[INFO/MainProcess] updating 2011/2291(INI) - Reporting obligations under Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the CFP
[INFO/MainProcess] [
{
"data": [
"\n
In accordance with Council\nRegulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable\nexploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries\nPolicy (CFP), the Commission presents a report on the operation of\nthe CFP with respect to chapters II and III.
\n
The Commission is also\nobliged to report on the arrangements set out in Article 17\nparagraph 2 on fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters\nby 31 December 2011. This report complements the reporting in the\nGreen Paper on the Reform of\nthe Common Fisheries Policy.
\n
Chapter II -\nConservation and Sustainability: the\nreport notes that since 2002, multi-annual recovery and management\nplans with clear objectives and harvest rules have become the core\nof the conservation policy, and it gives an overview of the\ninitiatives undertaken in this area. Community plans were adopted\nfor 17 stocks in the EU waters. By the end of 2010, around 25% of\nthe stocks and 80% of the catches concerned (in tonnes) can be\nconsidered under multiannual plans and harvest rules. The 2010\nCommunication on consultation on fishing opportunities showed\nimprovements in the situation since 2003: a decrease in the numbers\nof stocks outside safe biological limits, as well as in stocks for\nwhich a fishing closure has been advised. However, of the stocks\nfor which robust data is available, over 60% is still fished\nbeyond maximum sustainable yield. Progress has been made as\nregards the levels of Total Allowable Catches (TAC) adopted by\nCouncil, compared to sustainable catch levels: on average, Council\nexceeded advice by 45%, with peaks as high as 59% (2005) and 51%\n(2008), but the gap between the advice and the result has narrowed\nin the last two years, and the 23% gap in the decision for 2011 is\nunprecedented. There has been an increase in the number of stocks\nfor which no scientific advice is available.
\n
From this overview it can\nbe confirmed that:
\n
\n- multi-annual plans are more effective in taking a\nlong-term perspective in managing stocks than the annual TAC\ndecision-making, especially since Council has started to respect\nthe rules of the plans for the TACs;
\n- nevertheless, the framework resulting from the 2002\nCFP reform has not curbed over-fishing enough, so EU fisheries\ncontinue to see declining catches taken from EU waters;
\n- the very significant gap between the levels of TACs\nagreed in Council and sustainable catches confirms the prevalence\nof short-term concerns over long-term sustainability. This\ncontinues to put stocks at further risk, though the recent\nnarrowing of the gap is a significant step forward;
\n- while vital to sound policy making, the knowledge base\nis under constant pressure, impeding progress in the coverage of\nstocks for which scientific advice is provided;
\n- the new CFP needs to provide the right tools for\nintegrating the ecosystems approach fully into conservation and\nsustainability.
\n
\n
Chapter III - Adjustment\nof Fishing Capacity: in 2002,\nresponsibility for adjusting the size of the fleet was devolved to\nMember States. From then on, targets for mandatory cuts to fishing\ncapacity were no longer set. Nevertheless, there were still global\nlimits on fishing capacity per Member State, and these have been\ncomplied with. However, it is clear that there is still\nsignificant over-capacity, and this is still a serious problem.\nThe devolution of fleet management to Member States has not led to\nsufficient cuts in fleet capacity, even if nominal capacity is\nwithin the ceilings set for Member States. Adjustment has been\nrelatively slow, despite the poor state of stocks throughout the\nEU. The drop in fleet capacity decrease is nominal, and has stayed\nbelow what is considered the technological development rate of the\nfleet. As there are no real yardsticks for success, it has not been\npossible to verify what progress has actually been made. In short,\nthe policy on adjusting the size of the fleet has not delivered\nsatisfactory results.
\n
All Member States have\ncomplied with legal fishing capacity limitations. Though some had\ndifficulties when the new rules came into force, today most Member\nStates have fleets with capacity under the ceilings they are\nallowed. This margin averages 10% in tonnage and 8% in power. This\nmeans that reductions in the size of the fleet were partly achieved\nwithout public aid. Given that Member States have complied with\nfishing capacity management rules, Article 16 on the conditionality\nEU funds for the fleet has never been applied.
\n
Lastly, the report notes\nthat Member States are obliged to report on fleet capacity, and\nthis is an essential component of the policy. The results assessed\nare not satisfactory. Member States have reported to the Commission\nannually, providing information for the Commission's annual report\non the state of the fleet. However, the reports might have been\nexpected to show an excess of fishing capacity, the most important\nissue at stake, and the data available is inconclusive. The\nreporting tool has not enabled precise estimates of excess fishing\ncapacity per segment or fishery.
\n
In view of the above, some\nconclusions can be drawn concerning the performance of the fishing\ncapacity management provisions:
\n
\n- despite compliance with the fishing capacity\nmanagement rules defined at EU level, there are still clear\nindications of over-capacity in the EU fleet, namely excess of\nfishing mortality in some stocks, low profitability and low\ncapacity utilisation;
\n- while tonnage is a reliable fishing capacity\nindicator, the Commission has serious concerns about the reported\npower of fishing vessels, as the data suggest under-declaration,\nmaking it extremely difficult to estimate fleet capacity\naccurately;
\n- the policy is static, in that it only establishes a\nceiling, with no specific objectives for reduction. Compliance with\nnominal capacity limits under these ceilings does not mean that\nthere is no persistent overcapacity. The system does not integrate\ntechnical progress into the management measures. However, due to\ntechnological progress, a static capacity ceiling leads to\novercapacity;
\n- it has proven very difficult to set clear objectives\nfor the size of the fleet and to monitor the balance between\nfishing capacity and fishing opportunities due to the complexity\ninherent in quantifying over-capacity. Determining an adequate\nlevel for the size of the fleet given a certain amount of fishing\npossibilities needs to take into account factors other than the\nbiological and economic.
\n
\n
Article 12 - fishing\nrestrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters: since 2002, the Commission has not been not informed\nof real problems on specific restrictions, whether on setting them,\nor on their management and functioning. Member States were able to\nresolve problems without having to refer any of them to the\nCommission. The regime is very stable, and the rules have continued\nto operate satisfactorily. All Member States stressed the\nimportance of the specific restrictions in the light of their\noriginal objectives in their reactions to the Green Paper on CFP\nreform. One Member State suggested extending the 6-12 miles regime\nto 10-20 miles to achieve the regime's objectives more effectively.\nConsidering the current conservation state of many stocks and the\ncontinued sensitivity of coastal waters for conservation, as well\nas difficulties in coastal areas highly dependent on fisheries and\nunlikely to benefit from other economic development, the objectives\nfor the specific regime appear to remain as valid as they were in\n2002. Modifying current arrangements might disrupt the balance that\nhas developed since the introduction of the special\nregime.
\n
\n
PURPOSE: to present a Commission report on Council\nRegulation (EC) n° 2371/2002 regarding the chapters\nConservation and Sustainability and Adjustment of Fishing Capacity\nand also on the arrangements set out in Article 17 (2) on fishing\nrestrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters.
\n
CONTENT: in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No\n2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of\nfisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the\nCommission presents a report on the operation of the CFP with\nrespect to chapters II (Conservation and Sustainability) and III\n(Adjustment of Fishing Capacity) as well as on the arrangements on\nfishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters. This report\ncomplements the reporting in the Green Paper on the Reform of the Common\nFisheries Policy.
\n
Conservation and sustainability: since 2002, multi-annual recovery and management\nplans with clear objectives and harvest rules have become the core\nof the conservation policy. They balance ecological requisites\n(state of the stocks and exploitation rates) and economic and\nsocial considerations (stability of catches).
\n
Improvements in the situation since\n2003: a decrease in the numbers of\nstocks outside safe biological limits, as well as in stocks for\nwhich a fishing closure has been advised. However, of the stocks\nfor which robust data is available, over 60% is still fished beyond\nmaximum sustainable yield.
\n
Progress has been made as regards the levels of Total\nAllowable Catches (TAC) adopted by Council, compared to sustainable\ncatch levels. There has also been an increase in the number of\nstocks for which no scientific advice is available.
\n
The Commission’s report confirms that:
\n
\n· \nmulti-annual plans are more\neffective in taking a long-term\nperspective in managing stocks than the annual TAC decision-making,\nespecially since Council has started to respect the rules of the\nplans for the TACs;
\n
\n· \nnevertheless, the framework resulting from the\n2002 CFP reform has not curbed overfishing enough, so EU\nfisheries continue to see declining catches taken from EU\nwaters;
\n
\n· \nthe very significant gap between the levels of\nTACs agreed in Council and sustainable catches confirms the\nprevalence of short-term concerns over long-term\nsustainability. This continues to put stocks at further risk,\nthough the recent narrowing of the gap is a significant step\nforward;
\n
\n· \nwhile vital to sound policy making, the\nknowledge base is under constant pressure, impeding progress\nin the coverage of stocks for which scientific advice is\nprovided;
\n
\n· \nlastly, the new CFP needs to provide the right\ntools for integrating the ecosystems approach fully into\nconservation and sustainability.
\n
2) Adjustment of fishing capacity: in 2002, responsibility for adjusting the size of\nthe fleet was devolved to Member States. From then on, targets for\nmandatory cuts to fishing capacity were no longer set.\nNevertheless, there were still global limits on fishing capacity\nper Member State, and these have been complied with.
\n
However, it is clear that there is still\nsignificant over-capacity, and this is still a serious\nproblem. The devolution of fleet management to Member States has\nnot led to sufficient cuts in fleet capacity, even if nominal\ncapacity is within the ceilings set for Member States. Adjustment\nhas been relatively slow, despite the poor state of stocks\nthroughout the EU.
\n
All Member States have complied with legal fishing\ncapacity limitations. Though some had\ndifficulties when the new rules came into force, today most Member\nStates have fleets with capacity under the ceilings they are\nallowed.
\n
Lastly, Member States are obliged to report on fleet\ncapacity, and this is an essential component of the policy. The\nresults assessed are not satisfactory. The reporting tool has\nnot enabled precise estimates of excess fishing capacity per\nsegment or fishery.
\n
In view of these considerations, some conclusions can\nbe drawn concerning the performance of the fishing capacity\nmanagement provisions:
\n
\n· \ndespite compliance with the fishing capacity\nmanagement rules defined at EU level, there are still clear\nindications of over-capacity in the EU fleet, namely: excess of\nfishing mortality in some stocks, low profitability and low\ncapacity utilization;
\n
\n· \nwhile tonnage is a reliable fishing capacity\nindicator, the Commission has serious concerns about the\nreported power of fishing vessels, as the data suggest\nunder-declaration, making it extremely difficult to estimate fleet\ncapacity accurately;
\n
\n· \nthe policy is static, in that it only\nestablishes a ceiling, with no specific objectives for\nreduction. Compliance with nominal capacity limits under these\nceilings does not mean that there is no persistent overcapacity.\nThe system does not integrate technical progress into the\nmanagement measures;
\n
\n· \nit has proven very difficult to set clear\nobjectives for the size of the fleet and to monitor the balance\nbetween fishing capacity and fishing opportunities due to the\ncomplexity inherent in quantifying over-capacity. Determining an\nadequate level for the size of the fleet given a certain amount of\nfishing possibilities needs to take into account factors other than\nthe biological and economic.
\n
3) Fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles\nwaters: the objectives related to\nintroduction (before entry into force of the CFP) of specific\narrangements in the waters up to 12 nautical miles were: (i)\nconservation of fish resources through allowing only small-scale\ncoastal fleets into the area; (ii) preservation of coastal fleets'\ntraditional fishing activities to maintain the social and economic\ninfrastructure of these areas.
\n
These specific restriction provisions were introduced\nin the CFP in 1983 and have been extended with every reform of the\npolicy since.
\n
Since 2002, the Commission has not been not\ninformed of (real) problems or conflicts on specific\nrestrictions, whether on setting them, or on their management\nand functioning. Member States were able to resolve problems\nwithout having to refer any of them to the Commission. The\nregime is very stable, and the rules have continued to operate\nsatisfactorily. All Member States stressed the importance of the\nspecific restrictions in the light of their original objectives.\nOne Member State suggested extending the 6-12 miles regime to 10-20\nmiles to achieve the regime’s objectives more\neffectively.
\n
Considering the current conservation state of many\nstocks, and the continued sensitivity of coastal waters for\nconservation, as well as ongoing difficulties in coastal areas\nhighly dependent on fisheries and unlikely to benefit from other\neconomic development, the objectives for the specific regime\nappear to remain as valid as they were in 2002. Modifying\ncurrent arrangements might disrupt the current balance that has\ndeveloped since the introduction of the special regime.
\n
\n
The Council adopted a\nroadmap for strengthening the rights and protection of\nvictims, in particular in criminal proceedings. The roadmap sets\nout priority actions for the protection of victims of crimes. It\ninvites the Commission to submit proposals regarding all of the\nmeasures.
\n
Among the overall\nobjectives of EU action are establishing procedures to respect\nvictims' dignity, integrity and privacy, enhancing their access to\njustice and designing procedures aimed at preventing repeat\nvictimisation.
\n
The text states that action\nat the level of the Union directed at strengthening the rights and\nprotection of victims should aim at introducing common minimum\nstandards and at attaining, among others, the following general\nobjectives:
\n
1. Establish adequate procedures and structures to\nrespect the dignity, personal and psychological integrity as well\nas the privacy of the victim in criminal proceedings.
\n
2. Enhance the access to justice by victims of crime,\nalso by fostering the role of victim support services.
\n
3. Design adequate procedures and structures aimed at\npreventing secondary and repeat victimisation.
\n
4. Encourage the provision of interpretation and\ntranslation for the victim within criminal proceedings.
\n
5. Where appropriate, encourage victims to participate\nactively in criminal proceedings.
\n
6. Strengthen the right of victims and of their legal\ncounsel to receive timely information about the proceedings and\ntheir outcomes.
\n
7. Encourage the recourse to restorative justice and\nalternative dispute resolution methods taking into account the\ninterest of the victim.
\n
8. Pay special attention to children, as part of the\nmost vulnerable group of victims, and always keep in mind the best\ninterest of the child.
\n
9. Ensure that Member States provide training, or\nencourage the provision of training, to all relevant\nprofessionals.
\n
10. Ensure that the victim may be awarded compensation\nas appropriate.
\n
The roadmap lays down the\nfollowing priority measures:
\n
\n- revising current law\n(Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA) on the standing of victims in\ncriminal proceedings;
\n- a regulation on mutual\nrecognition of protection measures for victims taken in the\ncontext of civil matters. This would complement the\nEuropean protection order in criminal matters, currently under\ndiscussion in the Council after the first reading of the European\nParliament.
\n
\n
The Commission presented\nproposals for these two actions on 18 May, which the Council\nwelcomes and intends to examine as matters of priority. The\nother priority measures concern:
\n
\n- guidelines on best\npractices among member states in the field of assistance and\nprotection to victims of crime, once the revised legislation on the\nstanding of victims is adopted;
\n- a review of the existing\ndirective relating to compensation to crime victims;
\n- recommendations on how to\ndeal with the specific needs of vulnerable victims and victims of\nparticular types of crimes, e.g. trafficking in human beings or\nsexual exploitation of children.
\n
\n
The Council invited the\nCommission to also submit proposals on these priorities and\nundertook to deal with them as a matter of priority.
\n
The Commission also\npresented to ministers the package on victims' rights it published\non 18 May, which includes:
\n
\n- a communication\non strengthening victims' rights in the EU;
\n- the proposed\nregulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in\ncivil matters;
\n- the proposed directive on\nminimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims\nof crime.
\n
\n
\n
Le Conseil a adopté une\nfeuille de route visant à renforcer les droits et la\nprotection des victimes, en particulier dans le cadre des\nprocédures pénales. Celle-ci définit des\nactions prioritaires pour la protection des victimes de la\ncriminalité et invite la Commission à formuler des\npropositions sur l'ensemble des mesures énoncées. Les\nmesures prises au niveau de l'Union en vue de renforcer les droits\net la protection des victimes.
\n
Selon la feuille de route, les\nmesures prises au niveau de l'Union en vue de renforcer les droits\net la protection des victimes devraient viser à\nintroduire des normes minimales communes et à atteindre,\nentre autres, les objectifs généraux\nsuivants:
\n
\n- Établir des\nprocédures et des structures adéquates pour garantir\nle respect de la dignité, de l'intégrité de la\npersonne et de l'intégrité psychologique de la\nvictime ainsi que de sa vie privée dans le cadre d'une\nprocédure pénale.
\n- Renforcer\nl'accès à la justice pour les victimes de la\ncriminalité, notamment par la promotion du rôle des\nservices d'aide aux victimes.
\n- Concevoir des\nprocédures et des structures adéquates visant\nà prévenir les préjudices secondaires ou\nrépétés pour la victime.
\n- Encourager la\nfourniture de services d'interprétation et de traduction\npour la victime dans le cadre d'une procédure\npénale.
\n- Le cas\néchéant, encourager les victimes à participer\nactivement à la procédure pénale.
\n- Renforcer le droit\nqu'ont les victimes et leur conseiller juridique de recevoir en\ntemps utile des informations concernant la procédure et son\nissue.
\n- Encourager le recours\nà la justice réparatrice et aux modes alternatifs de\nrèglement des conflits en tenant compte de\nl'intérêt de la victime.
\n- Accorder\nune attention\nparticulière aux enfants, qui appartiennent à la\ncatégorie de victimes la plus vulnérable, et toujours\nsonger à l'intérêt supérieur de\nl'enfant.
\n- Faire en sorte que\nles États membres fournissent une formation ou encouragent\nla fourniture d'une formation à tous les professionnels\nconcernés.
\n- Faire en sorte que la\nvictime puisse être indemnisée le cas\néchéant.
\n
\n
La feuille de route définit\nles mesures prioritaires suivantes:
\n
\n
\n- la révision de\nla législation actuelle relative au statut des victimes dans\nle cadre de procédures pénales (décision-cadre\n2001/220/JAI);
\n- un règlement\nrelatif à la reconnaissance mutuelle des mesures de\nprotection des victimes en matière civile, qui viendrait\ncompléter la décision\nde protection européenne en matière pénale\nactuellement examinée par le Conseil, à la suite de\nla première lecture du Parlement\neuropéen.
\n
\n
\n
La Commission a\nprésenté, le 18 mai 2011, des propositions concernant\nces deux actions, dont le Conseil se félicite et qu'il\ncompte examiner en priorité.
\n
Les autres mesures\nprioritaires concernent:
\n
\n- des lignes directrices\nen matière d'échange de bonnes pratiques entre les\nÉtats membres dans le domaine de l'aide aux victimes de la\ncriminalité et de leur protection, après l'adoption\nde la législation révisée relative au statut\ndes victimes;
\n- un réexamen de\nla directive actuelle relative à l'indemnisation des\nvictimes de la criminalité;
\n- des recommandations\nsur la gestion des besoins spécifiques des victimes\nvulnérables et des victimes de certaines formes de\ncriminalité, par exemple la traite d'êtres humains ou\nl'exploitation sexuelle des enfants.
\n
\n
Le Conseil a invité la\nCommission à présenter également des\npropositions à cet égard et s'est engagé\nà les examiner en priorité.
\n
La Commission a également\nprésenté aux ministres le train de mesures\nrelatives aux droits des victimes, qu'elle a publié le\n18 mai et qui comporte:
\n
\n- une communication\nsur le renforcement des droits des victimes dans l'Union\neuropéenne ;
\n- la proposition\nde règlement relatif à la reconnaissance mutuelle\ndes mesures de protection en matière civile ;
\n- la proposition de\ndirective établissant des normes minimales concernant les\ndroits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la\ncriminalité.
\n
\n
\n
PURPOSE: establish minimum\nstandards on the rights, support and protection of victims of\ncrime.
\n
PROPOSED ACT: Directive of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\n
BACKGROUND: this proposal\nis part of a legislative package which aims at strengthening the\nrights of victims in the EU and which also includes the following\ntwo other elements: a communication on strengthening victims' rights in the\nEU and a proposal for a Regulation on mutual recognition\nof protection measures in civil\nmatters.
\n
The European Union has set\nitself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of\nfreedom, security and justice, the cornerstone of which is the\nprinciple of mutual recognition of judgments and other decisions of\njudicial authorities taken in civil and criminal matters within the\nUnion. It has already acted on the rights of victims in criminal\nproceedings through Council Framework Decision\n2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in\ncriminal proceedings. Whilst improvements have been achieved in\nthis area, the objectives of the Council Framework Decision have\nnot been fully realised.
\n
The European Parliament has\nalso called upon the Council to adopt a comprehensive legal\nframework offering victims of crime the widest protection5. In its\nresolution of 26 November 2009 on the elimination of violence\nagainst women, the Parliament called on the Member States to\nimprove their national laws and policies to combat all forms of\nviolence against women and to act in order to tackle the causes of\nviolence against women, not least by employing preventive\nmeasures and called on the Union to guarantee the right to\nassistance, protection and support for all victims of violence.\nDeclaration 19 of the protocols to the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union also calls on Member States to take all\nnecessary measures to prevent and punish acts of domestic violence\nand to support and protect the victims of such violence.
\n
Judicial cooperation in\ncriminal matters in the Union is based on the principle of mutual\nrecognition of judgments and judicial decisions. Mutual recognition\ncan only operate effectively in a spirit of confidence, whereby not\nonly judicial authorities but all those involved in the criminal\njustice process and others who have a legitimate interest in it can\ntrust in the adequacy of the rules of each Member State and trust\nthat those rules are correctly applied. Where victims of crime are\nnot subject to the same minimum standards throughout the EU, such\ntrust can be reduced due to concerns over the treatment of victims\nor due to differences in procedural rules.
\n
Common minimum\nrules should thus lead to increased\nconfidence in the criminal justice systems of all Member States,\nwhich in turn should lead to more efficient judicial cooperation in\na climate of mutual trust as well as to the promotion of a\nfundamental rights culture in the European Union.
\n
It is for this reason that\nthe Commission is now proposing this legislative\nframework.
\n
IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the\nEuropean Commission considered five options: retention of\nthe status quo (option 1) and four other policy options (options 2,\n3a, 3b and 4).
\n
\n- Option 1 - Status\nQuo: retention of the status quo.\nNo action at EU level.
\n- Option 2 - Low level\nof obligation: least prescriptive\noption. Imposes minimum obligations on Member States to establish\nsystems or services with minimum detail on what standards should be\nachieved. When necessary to take legal measures, this option\nrequires the least changes in national procedural laws.
\n- Option 3a - Medium\nlevel obligation: medium\nprescriptive option. Imposes medium level of obligation on Member\nStates for all measures to establish services and rights and\nimposes provisions on what such services should be while defining\nminimum details on what standards to be applied. The level of\nobligations on Member States is low and does not require Member\nStates to establish Restorative Justice Services (RJS) but only to\nensure that safeguards and minimum quality standards are applied\nwhere RJS are used.
\n- Option 3b -\nMedium/High level obligation:\nmedium prescriptive option. Imposes medium level of obligation on\nMember States for all measures to establish services and rights and\nimposes provisions on what such services should be while defining\nminimum details on what standards to be applied.
\n- Option 4 - Highest\nlevel of obligation: the most\nprescriptive option. Imposes a range of obligations on Member\nStates to establish services and rights. It also imposes more\ndetailed provisions on what such services should be and the exact\nstandards that should be applied.
\n
\n
The impact assessment\nconcluded that it was necessary to replace the 2001 Framework\nDecision with a new Directive containing concrete obligations on\nthe rights of victims. Option 3a was the preferred option of\nthe Commission. Legislation should be followed with practical\nmeasures to facilitate implementation. It would also be a first\nstep in this field with further studies and action envisaged, in\nparticular in relation to compensation of victims and legal aid for\nvictims.
\n
LEGAL BASIS: Article 82(2)\nof the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\n
CONTENT: the Directive intends to replace the 2001\nFramework Decision with a new Directive containing concrete\nobligations on the rights of victims. A number of provisions of\nCouncil Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims\nin criminal proceedings have been maintained in their original form\nor have been amended only to the extent necessary for clarity of\ndrafting.
\n
The following comments concentrate on those areas\nwhich introduce substantive changes to the Framework\nDecision:
\n
Definitions: the purpose\nof this Directive is to ensure that all victims of crime benefit\nfrom minimum standards throughout the EU. In particular, this\nDirective makes provision for support and protection to be given to\nfamily members of victims since such persons are often also harmed\nby the crime and may themselves be at risk of secondary\nvictimisation as well as victimisation or intimidation by the\noffender or his associates. All provisions in this Directive are\nalso applicable to family members of a victim whose death has been\ncaused by a criminal offence since such persons have specific and\nlegitimate interests in the proceedings beyond those of family\nmembers of surviving victims and are often recognised as\nrepresentatives of the victim.
\n
Information rights and right to understand and to be\nunderstood:a series of provisions are\nprovided in order to ensure that victims receive sufficient\ninformation in a form they can understand to enable them to fully\naccess their rights and to ensure they feel treated in a respectful\nmanner. Such information should be available from the moment a\nvictim makes a complaint of a criminal offence as well as on a\nregular basis throughout criminal proceedings and in relation to\nthe progress of the case. Sufficient detail should be provided to\nenable victims to make informed decisions about their participation\nin proceedings and how to access their rights, in particular\nwhen deciding whether to request a review of the decision not to\nprosecute. The victim may not understand the language of the\ninformation or there may be other factors such as the victim's age,\nmaturity, intellectual and emotional capacities, literacy levels\nand any disabilities.
\n
Right to access victim support\nservices: victims should have access\nto support services which provide information and advice, emotional\nand psychological support and practical assistance which are often\ncrucial to the recovery of victims and help them cope with the\naftermath of the crime and with the strain of any criminal\nproceedings. Support should be available from the earliest\npossible moment after the commission of a crime irrespective of\nwhether it has been reported. Such services can prove particularly\nimportant in regard to a victim's decision to ultimately report a\ncrime. Equally, victims may require support both during the period\nof any proceedings and in the long term. Support services may be\nprovided by governmental or non-governmental organisations and\nshould not involve excessive procedures and formalities which might\nreduce effective access to such services. Support may be provided\nin a variety of ways such as face-to-face meetings, by telephone or\nother remote means in order to maximise the geographical\ndistribution and availability of services. Certain groups of\nvictims including victims of sexual violence, bias crime such as\ngender based violence and race hate crime, and victims of terrorism\noften require specialist support services due to the particular\ncharacteristics of the crime they have fallen victim to.
\n
Although the provision of support should not be\ndependent on a victim making a complaint of an offence to the\npolice or other competent authorities, such authorities are often\nbest placed to inform victims of the possibility of support.\nMember States are therefore encouraged to establish appropriate\nconditions to enable the referral of victims to victim support\nservices, including by ensuring that data protection\nrequirements can be adhered to.
\n
Right to be heard: it is\nensured that the victim has an opportunity to provide initial and\nfurther information, views or evidence during criminal proceedings.\nThe exact extent of this right is left to national law and may\nrange from basic rights to communicate with and supply evidence to\na competent authority through to more extensive rights such as a\nright to have evidence taken into account, the right to ensure that\ncertain evidence is taken or the right to make interventions during\nthe trial.
\n
Rights in the event of a decision not to\nprosecute: victims should be able to\nverify that established procedures and rules have been complied\nwith and that a correct decision has been made to end a prosecution\nin relation to a specific person. Precise mechanisms for a review\nare left to national law. However, such a review should as a\nminimum be carried out by a person or authority different to the\none that took the original decision not to prosecute.
\n
Right to safeguards in the context of mediation and\nother restorative justice services:\nrestorative justice services encompass a range of services whether\nattached to, running prior to, in parallel with or after criminal\nproceedings. They may be available in relation to certain types of\ncrime or only in relation to adult or child offenders and include\nfor example victim offender mediation, family group conferencing\nand sentencing circles. The proposed Directive ensures that where\nsuch services are provided, safeguards are in place to ensure the\nvictim is not further victimised as a result of the process. Such\nservices should therefore have as a primary consideration the\ninterests and needs of the victim, repairing the harm to the\nvictim and avoiding further harm. Participation of the victim\nshould be voluntary which also implies that the victim has\nsufficient knowledge of the risks and benefits to make an informed\nchoice. It also means that factors such as power imbalances, and\nthe age, maturity or intellectual capacity of the victim which\ncould limit or reduce the victim's ability to make an informed\nchoice or could prejudice a positive outcome for the victim should\nbe taken into consideration in referring a case to and in\nconducting a restorative process. Whilst private proceedings should\nin general be confidential, unless agreed otherwise by the parties,\nfactors such as threats made during the process may be considered\nas requiring disclosure in the public interest. Ultimately any\nagreement between the parties should be reached\nvoluntarily.
\n
Right to reimbursement of expenses: this provision is consistent with the 2001 Framework\nDecision in providing to victims who participate in criminal\nproceedings the right to reimbursement of expenses. It also\nprovides for reimbursement where the victim attends the trial\nwithout participating in the proceedings as such. The purpose is to\nensure that victims are not prevented from attending the trial and\nseeing justice done, due to their own financial\nlimitations.
\n
Identification of vulnerable victims: victims should be treated in an individual manner\nand that a consistent mechanism is established to identify\nvulnerable victims who may require special measures during criminal\nproceedings. All victims of crime are per se vulnerable and\naccordingly require sensitive and careful treatment. However, some\nvictims are particularly vulnerable to further victimisation or\nintimidation by the accused or suspected person or his associates.\nIn addition, some victims are particularly at risk of being further\ndistressed or harmed by their involvement in criminal proceedings\nwhether through the giving of evidence or through other forms of\nparticipation. Such victims require special measures in order to\nminimise the likelihood of further harm occurring.
\n
The proposed Directive\nprovides that the vulnerability of victims to such harm be\ndetermined by the personal characteristics of the victim and by the\nnature or type of crime a victim has suffered. The majority of\nchildren and persons with disabilities are at particular risk of\nharm due to their personal characteristics. As a group they can\nimmediately be identified as vulnerable and in the majority of\ncases in need of special measures. Victims within other\ncategories based on the nature or type of crime, such as victims of\nsexual violence, including exploitation, and victims of human\ntrafficking are also in most cases vulnerable to further\nvictimisation during proceedings.
\n
At the same time, the\nproposal recognises that victims are individuals who react in\ndifferent ways to a crime and have different needs and\nvulnerabilities. Thus a victim may be vulnerable despite not\nfalling into a specific vulnerable victim category. An individual\nassessment mechanism is therefore to be established to ensure that\nall vulnerable victims are identified and properly protected. Such\nan approach can be crucial in facilitating a victim's recovery and\nensuring they are provided with the right assistance and protection\nduring proceedings and afterwards. It maximises the ability to\nprevent secondary and repeat victimisation and intimidation and to\nenable the victim to effectively access justice. Nevertheless, such\nan approach must be carried out to an extent proportionate to the\nlikelihood that criminal proceedings will be instituted and that\nspecific measures will be required by the victim. In particular the\nseverity of the crime and the degree of apparent harm suffered by\nthe victim provides a useful indication of the extent of any\nparticular individual assessment. The individual assessment should\ndetermine a victim's needs during proceedings and any requirements\nfor referral to victim support services. Those public officials who\nfirst come into contact with a victim when a crime is reported\nshould be trained and should have access to appropriate guidance,\ntools or protocols to enable them to carry out assessments of the\nneeds of victims in a consistent manner.
\n
Individual assessments\nshould consider any factors which may increase the likelihood of a\nvictim suffering further victimisation or intimidation during\nproceedings. In particular, the following factors should be taken\ninto account: age, gender and gender identity, ethnicity, race,\nreligion, sexual orientation, state of health, disability,\nrelationship to or dependence on the suspected or accused person.\nVictims of terrorism require particular attention in any assessment\ngiven the varying nature of such acts ranging from acts of mass\nterrorism to targeted terrorism against individuals.
\n
Right to avoidance of contact between victim and\noffender: this provision mirrors the\napproach taken in the 2001 Framework Decision with a view to\nensuring that where a victim must attend a venue as a result of\ntheir participation in criminal proceedings, appropriate steps\nshould be taken to ensure the victim does not have to come into\ncontact with accused or suspected persons. This could be achieved\nby various means such as establishing separate waiting areas, and\ncontrolling the arrival of victims and the accused. Best practice\nand guidance offered to public officials can also act as an\nimportant source of information on how to assist in avoiding\ncontact.
\n
Right to protection of victims during questioning in\ncriminal investigations:the proposal\naims toprevent secondary victimisation by ensuring that the victim\nis interviewed as early as possible and that interaction with\nauthorities should be as easy as possible whilst limiting the\nnumber of unnecessary interactions the victim has with them.\nDecisions on when to carry out any interviews should as far as\npossible take account of the victim's needs as well as any urgency\nin relation to the gathering of evidence. Victims may be\naccompanied by a trusted person of their choice. Only in\nexceptional circumstances should this possibility be limited and\nthen only in relation to a specific person. The victim should then\nbe permitted to be accompanied by another person of their\nchoice.
\n
Right of protection of vulnerable victims including\nchildren during criminal proceedings:\na series of measures aim to ensure that when victims have been\nidentified as being vulnerable to further victimisation or\nintimidation, appropriate measures are taken to help prevent such\nharm. Such measures should be available throughout criminal\nproceedings whether during the initial investigative or\nprosecutorial phase or during the trial itself. The measures\nnecessary will vary according to the stage of\nproceedings.
\n
During criminal\ninvestigation, minimum levels of protection are required in\nrelation to any interviews with the victim. These should be\ncarried out in a sensitive manner and officials should have\nreceived appropriate training to this end. To this end, it may be\nnecessary, according to the vulnerability of the victim, that\ninterviews are only carried out in appropriate premises. This may\nmean premises which allow for video interviews or simply where\nfurniture for example is adapted for children or persons with\ndisabilities.
\n
Vulnerable victims can find\nthe interview process highly distressing, particularly where the\ncrime is of a very personal nature. Establishing trust with the\ninterviewer can be important and may only happen over a period of\ntime. For this reason, this article requires that in most cases a\nvulnerable victim is to be interviewed by the same person.\nExceptions are permitted for reasons of good administration, such\nas an urgent need to interview someone else or the unavailability\nof the usual interviewer. For similar reasons, in cases of sexual\nviolence, victims should have the right to be interviewed by a\nperson of the same gender.
\n
During the trial itself,\nprotection from intimidation, whether intentional or not, is also a\nrelevant factor when determining appropriate protection measures.\nThis proposal establishes minimum measures for this purpose as well\nas to minimise the distress of, in particular, testifying.\nMeasures to enable the victim to avoid visual contact with the\ndefendant are established as well as measures to exclude members of\nthe public and press. In particular, in order to ensure that the\nfundamental rights of an accused or suspected person are respected,\nthe decision on whether such measures are to be taken is left to\njudicial discretion. However, the fact that a victim is a child, a\nperson with a disability, a victim of sexual violence or of human\ntrafficking combined with the individual assessment should provide\na strong indication of the need for a protection\nmeasure.
\n
Given the particular\nvulnerabilities of children, additional measures should also be\nmade available and utilised in normal circumstances. Interviews may\nbe videotaped and used as evidence in court and that in appropriate\ncases, where a child does not have a representative, the judicial\nauthority should appoint one.
\n
Training of practitioners: it is provided to establish training requirements\nfor public officials who come into contact with victims. Training\nshould cover issues which will assist officials to treat victims in\na respectful manner, to identify protection needs and to provide\nthem with appropriate information to help them cope with\nproceedings and access their rights. Such training should cover\nissues such as awareness of the negative effects of crime on\nvictims and the risk of causing secondary victimisation, skills and\nknowledge, including special measures and techniques, required to\nassist victims and minimise any trauma to the victim in particular\nfrom secondary victimisation, recognising and preventing\nintimidation, threats and harm to victims, the availability of\nservices providing information and support specific to the needs of\nvictims and the means of accessing these services. Additionally, it\nis ensured that those providing victim support or restorative\njustice services should also be trained to an appropriate level\nsuch that they treat victims in a respectful and impartial manner\nand provide their services to professional standards.
\n
BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS:\nthis proposal has no implication for the EU\nbudget.
\n
\n
The Commission has presented a communication seeking\nto strengthen victims' rights in the EU so that victims are\nproperly recognised and that their rights are respected without any\nform of discrimination throughout the EU.
\n
Need for new measures in\nfavour of victims: seeking to\nconsolidate the area of freedom, security and justice, the\nCommission has identified as a strategic\npriority based on the Stockholm Programme and its Action\nPlan the need for action to strengthen the rights of victims of\ncrime and to ensure that their need for protection, support and\naccess to justice is met.
\n
The EU has already acted on\nthe rights of victims in criminal proceedings (see Council\nFramework Decision 2001/220/JHA; Directive 2004/80/EC relating to\ncompensation to crime victims) and most Member States have some\nlevel of victim protection and support in place. However, the needs\nof victims in criminal proceedings are still generally not\nsufficiently addressed and the level of victims' rights\ncontinues to differ significantly across the\nEU.
\n
\n- According to Eurostat data, around 30 million\ncrimes against persons or property are recorded annually and\nmany crimes are never reported. Crime often affects more than one\nvictim and those close to the victims also suffer indirectly. This\nleads to a qualified estimate that there is likely to be up to 75\nmillion direct victims of crime every year.
\n- Each year, many people are victims of road accidents.\nThere are more than a million road accidents recorded in the\nEU and around 31 000 people are killed each year on the roads,\nincluding 850 children under the age of 14, while 250 000 get\nserious injuries and 1.2 million suffer minor injuries.
\n- People in Europe are constantly moving across borders,\nand the risk of becoming a victim is just as great when abroad. Of\nan estimated 1.4 billion journeys made by Europeans in 2008,\nabout 90% were within the Union.
\n
\n
The Commission discusses\nthe gender dimension, noting that women are particularly\nexposed to hidden forms of violence. The Council of Europe\nestimates that 20-25% of European women experience physical acts of\nviolence at least once during their adult lives, 12-15% find\nthemselves in a relationship of domestic abuse, and more than 10%\nsuffer sexual violence.
\n
The Commission presents a\nlegislative package, the core objective of which is to deal with\nvictims' needs in a comprehensive manner. The proposals address the\nneeds of both direct victims of crime and indirect victims, such as\nthe family members who also suffer from the consequences of the\ncrime. Immediate family or dependents of direct victims will\ntherefore, where appropriate, benefit from the support and\nprotection proposed in this package.
\n
The main points are as\nfollows:
\n
\n- Recognition and respectful treatment: human dignity of individuals is a fundamental right\nand the foundation for proper treatment of victims. Individuals who\nhave suffered from crime therefore expect to be recognised as\nvictims, to have their suffering acknowledged and to be treated in\na sensitive and professional manner.
\n- Protection: to avoid\nharm caused by inadequate procedures, such as repeated and\ninsensitive interviewing, it is important to ensure protection of\nvictims throughout criminal investigations and court proceedings.\nThis protection is essential for particularly vulnerable victims,\nsuch as children. Even after a crime, victims are vulnerable to\nfurther harm, intimidation or reprisals from the offender. To\nprotect people who exercise their right to free movement, the\nCommission is proposing for the first time the mutual recognition\nof protection measures.
\n- Support: appropriate and\ntimely support is essential to help victims overcome emotional,\npractical, administrative and legal obstacles and to recover.\nDespite the work done by existing victim support services, such\nassistance is currently not always easily accessible.
\n- Access to justice:\ninformation for victims on their rights and on key dates and\ndecisions is an essential aspect of participating in proceedings,\nand it should be given in a way that victims understand. Victims\nshould also be able to attend the trial and follow their case\nthrough. Victims across the EU do not always get access to these\nbasic elements of justice.
\n- Compensation and restoration: persons who have suffered harm because of the acts\nof others often expect to get some form of financial compensation,\nwhether from the State or the offender. Restorative justice, which\nis a relatively new concept in criminal proceedings, goes beyond\npurely financial compensation to focus on the recovery of the\nvictim. As an alternative to, or in combination with formal\njustice, it aims to restore victims to the position they had before\nthe crime by giving them, if they so wish, an opportunity to\nconfront their offenders face to face and for the offenders to take\nresponsibility for their acts.
\n
\n
The Commission is proposing\nthe following package of legislative instruments to respond to\nthese needs and to ensure that victims in Europe receive a minimum\nlevel of rights, protection, support, access to justice and\nrestoration. The Commission will propose:
\n
\n- a Directive establishing minimum standards on the\nrights, support and protection of victims of crime, replacing the 2001 Framework Decision. The Directive\nwill ensure that victims are treated with respect and that the\nspecial needs of vulnerable victims are properly addressed. It will\nalso ensure that victims receive the support they need, that\nthey can participate in proceedings and receive and understand\nrelevant information, and that they are protected throughout\ncriminal investigations and court proceedings;
\n- a Regulation\non mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters,\nwhich will help preventing harm and violence and ensure that\nvictims (of domestic violence, for example) who benefit from a\nprotection measure taken in one Member State are provided with the\nsame level of protection in other Member States should they\nmove or travel there. Such protection should be awarded without the\nvictim having to go through additional procedures. This measure\ncomplements the proposal\nfor a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on\nthe European Protection Order which is currently being\ndiscussed in the European Parliament and Council.
\n
\n
Looking to the\nfuture, for the next phase of action on victims' rights the\nCommission will:
\n
\n- review Directive 2004/80/EC on compensation of crime\nvictims and Regulation \"Rome II\" (to address the question of the\nlaw applicable to limitation periods for cross-border traffic\naccidents) ;
\n- carry out further studies and action on victims, in\nparticular in relation to specific categories of victims such as\nvictims of terrorism, organised crime and gender-based violence,\nincluding female genital mutilation, with a view to improving the\nsituation of such victims;
\n- implement a range of flanking measures that will be\ncrucial to ensuring that victims obtain effective rights in\npractice, and not necessarily only when involved in criminal\nproceedings. This will include training and capacity building,\nexchange of good practices, prevention of crime and violence (such\nas raising awareness and providing information), data collection\nand research ;
\n- continue to give financial support under existing\nfinancing programmes to promote issues relevant to victims' rights\nand needs.
\n
\n
These measures will allow the EU to make victims'\nrights and needs a central part of securing justice.
\n
\n
\nOpinion of the European Data Protection\nSupervisor on the legislative package on the victims of crime,\nincluding a proposal for a Directive establishing minimum standards\non the rights, support and protection of the victims of crime and a\nproposal for a Regulation on mutual recognition of protection\nmeasures in civil matters
\n
It is recalled that on 18 May 2011, the Commission\nadopted a package of legislative instruments on the protection of\nthe victims of crime consisting of: (i) a proposal for a\nDirective establishing minimum standards on the rights, support\nand protection of victims of crime and a (ii) a\nproposal for a Regulation on mutual recognition of protection\nmeasures in civil matters. Both proposals are accompanied by a Commission\ncommunication on strengthening victims' rights in the\nEU.
\n
However, the EDPS notes that he was not consulted\nunder Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, and this Opinion\nis therefore based on Article 41(2) of the same\nRegulation.
\n
Whilst the EDPS welcomes the policy objectives of\nthe two proposals under consideration and generally shares the\napproach of the Commission, he finds that the protection of\nprivacy and personal data of the victims in the proposed Directive\ncould be in some instances strengthened and\nclarified.
\n
The EDPS' comments focus mainly on the following\naspects:
\n
\n· \nArticle 23 of the proposed Directive dealing\nwith the right to protection of privacy and relations with\nmedia;
\n
\n· \nvictims' rights of information and access to\ntheir own personal data; and
\n
\n· \nthe protection of the confidentiality of\ncommunications between the victim and victim support\nservices.
\n
1) Protection of the victim’s privacy (Article 23\nof the proposed Directive): the EDPS\nnotes, inter alia, that the Article does not cover the full right\nto protection of privacy of the victims of crime. The provision is\nmuch more limited in scope as it simply provides for the power of\n‘judicial authorities’ to issue protective measures\n‘during the court proceedings’. However, the protection\nof privacy should not only be guaranteed during the court\nproceedings, but also during the investigation and pre-trial phase.\nMore generally, privacy should be ensured where necessary from the\nfirst contact with the competent authorities and also after the\ntermination of court proceedings. Furthermore, the Article does not\ncontain any indication about the content of the specific measures\nthat may be adopted by judicial authorities to preserve the\nvictim's right to privacy, nor does it contain any provision\nguaranteeing the confidentiality of the information held by public\nauthorities.
\n
EDPS advises the legislator to:
\n
\n· \ninclude in Article 23 a general provision\non the protection of privacy and personal data stating that Member\nStates shall guarantee as far as possible the protection of the\nprivate and family life of victims and protect personal data of the\nvictims from the first contact with the official authorities,\nthroughout any court proceedings and after such\nproceedings;
\n
\n· \nthe current Article 23(1) should be modified so\nas to enable judicial authorities to issue protective measures\n‘during criminal investigation’;
\n
\n· \nspecify under Article 23(1) a list of minimum\nmeasures (such as non-disclosure or limitation of the\ndisclosure of information concerning the identity and whereabouts\nof the victims or family members) which judicial authorities\nmay adopt in order to protect the privacy and photographic images\nof the victims and their family members ;
\n
\n· \nprovide that Member States shall require all\nauthorities in contact with victims to adopt clear standards by\nwhich they may only disclose to a third party information received\nfrom or relating to a victim under the condition that the victim\nhas explicitly consented to such disclosure or that there is\na legal requirement or authorisation to do so.
\n
As it deals with the relationship between privacy\nand the media, the EDPS notes that the proposal has adopted a\nminimalistic approach, by simply referring to the instrument of\nself- regulation. The EDPS understands the reasons for adopting a\ncautious attitude with regard to this subject and generally agrees\nwith the Commission's approach.
\n
2) Specific rights to information and\naccess: the EDPS notes that Article 3\nof the proposed Directive, dealing with the right to receive\ninformation from the first contact with a competent authority, does\nnot mention information relating to data protection. In order to\nensure adequate protection of their personal data, victims should\nreceive at appropriate times all the information necessary to\nenable them to fully understand how their personal data will be\nprocessed. The EDPS asks the legislator to:
\n
\n· \ninclude in Article 3 a requirement to provide\nvictims with information concerning further processing of his/her\npersonal data in conformity with Article 10 of Directive\n95/46/EC and consider whether to include specific provisions on the\nright to access his/her personal data;
\n
3) Confidentiality of communications between victims\nand support services: certain\ncategories of victims, such as victims of sexual violence, gender,\nracial hatred or other bias crimes, or victims of terrorism, may\nrequire specialist support services, including psychological\nsupport. In these cases, the communications between the victim and\nthe professionals providing support services should be adequately\nprotected from disclosure. The EDPS suggests that the\nlegislator:
\n
\n· \nclarify the scope of the confidentiality\nrequirement of victim support services under Article 7, by specifying that the victim shall\nhave the right to refuse disclosure in any judicial or\nadministrative proceedings of confidential communications with a\nsupport service provider and that in principle such communications\nmay be disclosed by a third party only with his/her\nconsent.
\n
Regulation on mutual recognition of protection\nmeasures in civil matters: the\nproposed Regulation complements the EPO\ninitiative concerning mutual recognition of protection measures\nin criminal matters. Since the proposed Regulation concerns\njudicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border\nimplications, its application falls within the scope of Directive\n95/46/EC. This was not the case for the EPO initiative.
\n
Furthermore, it is not sufficiently clear from the\nproposal which personal data of the protected person will be\ncommunicated to the person causing the risk, in particular pursuant\nto Article 13.
\n
The EDPS advises the legislator to:
\n
\n· \ninsert, at least in the recitals of the\nproposal, a reference to Directive 95/46/EC stating that\npersonal data processed under the regulation should be protected in\naccordance with the national laws implementing Directive\n95/46/EC;
\n
\n· \nstate clearly in Article 13 that the person\ncausing the risk should be provided only with those personal data\nof the protected person that are strictly necessary for the\nexecution of the measure. The communication in question should,\nas far as possible, avoid disclosing the address or other contact\ndetails concerning the protected person.
\n
\n
OBJECTIF:\nétablir des normes minimales concernant les droits, le\nsoutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité.
\n
ACTE PROPOSÉ\n: Directive du Parlement européen et du Conseil.
\n
CONTEXTE : la\nprésente proposition s'inscrit dans un train de mesures\nlégislatives dont l'objet est de renforcer les droits des\nvictimes dans l'Union européenne, incluant également\nune communication intitulée «Renforcer\nles droits des victimes dans l'Union européenne»\net une proposition\nde règlement relatif à la reconnaissance mutuelle des\nmesures de protection en matière civile.
\n
L'Union\neuropéenne s'est en effet fixé l'objectif de\nmaintenir et de développer un espace de liberté, de\nsécurité et de justice, dont la pierre angulaire est\nle principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle des jugements et autres\ndécisions d'autorités judiciaires en matière\ncivile et pénale dans l'Union. En ce qui concerne les droits\ndes victimes dans les procédures pénales, l'Union a\ndéjà pris des mesures au moyen de la décision-cadre\n2001/220/JAI du Conseil relative au statut des victimes dans le\ncadre de procédures pénales. Or, si des\nprogrès ont été accomplis dans ce domaine, les\nobjectifs de cette décision-cadre n'ont été\npas pleinement atteints.
\n
Le Parlement\neuropéen a également exhorté le Conseil\nà adopter un cadre juridique complet offrant aux victimes\nd'infractions pénales la protection la plus large. Dans sa\nrésolution\ndu 26 novembre 2009 sur l'élimination de la violence\nà l'égard des femmes, le Parlement européen\na demandé instamment aux États membres de renforcer\nleurs législations et leurs politiques nationales concernant\nla lutte contre toutes les formes de violence à\nl'égard des femmes et d'engager des actions pour\ns'attaquer aux causes des violences envers les femmes, en\nparticulier des actions de prévention, tout en demandant\nà l'Union de garantir le droit à l'aide, à la\nprotection et au soutien pour toutes les victimes de violences.
\n
Dans l'Union, la\ncoopération judiciaire en matière pénale\nrepose sur le principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle des jugements\net décisions judiciaires. Cette reconnaissance mutuelle ne\npeut être efficace que dans un climat de confiance, qui ne\nsaurait être établi que si non seulement les\nautorités judiciaires, mais aussi tous les acteurs de la\nprocédure pénale et ceux qui y ont un\nintérêt légitime, peuvent être\nassurés du caractère approprié des\nrègles de chacun des États membres et de\nl'application correcte de ces règles. Or, le fait que les\nvictimes de la criminalité ne bénéficient pas\nde normes minimales identiques dans l'ensemble de l'Union peut\nsaper cette confiance en raison d'inquiétudes quant au\ntraitement qui pourra leur être réservé ou de\ndivergences dans les règles procédurales. Des\nrègles minimales communes devraient donc renforcer la\nconfiance dans les systèmes de justice pénale de tous\nles États membres et, partant, aboutir à une\ncoopération judiciaire plus efficace dans un climat de\nconfiance mutuelle et promouvoir une culture des droits\nfondamentaux dans l'Union.
\n
C'est pourquoi, la\nCommission propose maintenant le présent cadre\nlégislatif.
\n
ANALYSE D'IMPACT :\nla Commission a procédé à une analyse d'impact\nenvisageant 5 options: maintien du statu quo (option 1) et\ntrois possibilités d'action (options 2, 3a, 3b et 4). Les 4\npossibilités d'action ont été définies\nen vue d'améliorer la situation des victimes en Europe.
\n
\n- Option\n1 - Maintien du statu quo : pas d'action\nau niveau de l'UE.
\n- Option\n2 - Niveau d'obligation faible : option la\nmoins contraignante qui impose un minimum d'obligations aux\nÉtats membres pour instaurer des systèmes ou des\nservices, en définissant de façon minimale les normes\nà atteindre. Lorsqu'il est nécessaire de prendre des\nmesures sur le plan juridique, cette option est celle qui requiert\nle moins de modifications dans le droit procédural\nnational.
\n- Option\n3a - Niveau d'obligation moyen : option\nmoyennement contraignante qui impose aux États membres un\nniveau moyen d'obligations afin qu'ils instaurent des services et\ndes droits, et leur impose des dispositions quant aux types de\nservices concernés, tout en définissant de\nmanière minimale les normes à appliquer. Cependant,\nle niveau d'obligation imposé aux États membres pour\nmettre en place des services de justice réparatrice (SJR)\nest faible.
\n- Option\n3b - Niveau d'obligation\nmoyen/élevé : option moyennement\ncontraignante qui impose aux États membres un niveau moyen\nd'obligations afin qu'ils prennent toutes les mesures\nnécessaires pour instaurer des services et des droits, et\nleur impose des dispositions quant aux types de services\nconcernés, tout en définissant de manière\nminimale les normes à appliquer. Toutefois, le niveau\nd'obligation imposé aux États membres concernant les\nSJR est supérieur à celui de l'option 3a, car ils\nsont tenus de mettre en place des SJR et d'appliquer des normes\nminimales.
\n- Option\n4 - Niveau d'obligation élevé :\noption la plus contraignante qui impose une série\nd'obligations aux États membres quant à\nl'instauration de services et de droits. Elle impose\négalement l'adoption de dispositions plus\ndétaillées quant aux types de services\nconcernés et aux normes précises qu'il convient\nd'appliquer.
\n
\n
L'analyse d'impact\nglobale a conclu qu'il était nécessaire de remplacer\nla décision‑cadre de 2001 par une nouvelle\ndirective fixant des obligations concrètes concernant les\ndroits des victimes. C'est finalement l'option 3a qui a\nété privilégiée. L'acte\nlégislatif devrait en outre être suivi de mesures\npratiques destinées à en faciliter la mise en\nœuvre. Il s'agirait également d'une première\nétape dans ce domaine, de nouvelles études et actions\nétant envisagées, notamment en ce qui concerne\nl'indemnisation des victimes et l'aide juridictionnelle qui leur\nest accordée.
\n
BASE JURIDIQUE :\narticle 82, par. 2 du traité sur le fonctionnement de\nl'Union européenne (TFUE).
\n
CONTENU : la\nproposition entend globalement remplacer la décision-cadre\n2001/220/JAI du Conseil relative au statut des victimes dans le\ncadre de procédures pénales. Plusieurs articles de la\ndécision-cadre ont donc été repris de la\ndécision-cadre.
\n
Les principales\nmodifications par rapport au texte de 2001 portent sur les points\nsuivants :
\n
\nDéfinitions : la présente directive a\npour objet de garantir à toutes les victimes de la\ncriminalité le bénéfice de normes minimales\ndans toute l'Union. Elle prévoit notamment l'offre d'un\nsoutien et d'une protection aux membres de la famille des victimes\ncar il est fréquent que ces personnes subissent aussi un\npréjudice du fait de l'infraction commise et risquent\nelles-mêmes d'être victimes de préjudices\nsecondaires ainsi que de représailles ou d'intimidations de\nla part de l'auteur ou de ses complices. Toutes les dispositions de\nla présente directive sont également applicables aux\nmembres de la famille d'une victime dont le décès\nrésulte d'une infraction pénale, car ces personnes\nont un intérêt particulier et légitime dans la\nprocédure.
\n
Droits en\nmatière d'information et droit de comprendre et d'être\ncompris : une série de dispositions sont\nprévues afin de faire en sorte que les victimes\nreçoivent suffisamment d'informations sous une forme\nqu'elles peuvent comprendre, afin de leur permettre de faire valoir\npleinement leurs droits et de garantir qu'elles se sentent\ntraitées avec respect. Ces informations doivent être\ndisponibles dès que la victime dépose une plainte\nrelative à une infraction pénale, de même\nqu'à intervalles réguliers, tout au long de la\nprocédure pénale et en fonction de l'avancement de\nl'affaire. Les victimes devraient recevoir suffisamment de\ndétails pour prendre des décisions en toute\nconnaissance de cause quant à leur participation à la\nprocédure et aux façons de faire valoir leurs droits,\nnotamment lorsqu'il s'agit de demander la révision d'une\ndécision de ne pas poursuivre. Les informations devront\nêtre, autant que possible, communiquées sous divers\nformats pour tenir compte de l'âge, du degré de\nmaturité, de la capacité intellectuelle, du\ndegré d'alphabétisation ou de la déficience\néventuelle des victimes.
\n
Droit\nd'accès aux services d'aide aux victimes : il est\nprévu de garantir aux victimes un accès à des\nservices d'aide fournissant des informations et des conseils, un\nsoutien émotionnel et psychologique ainsi qu'une assistance\npratique qui aident les victimes à endurer les\nconséquences de l'infraction et la pression de la\nprocédure pénale. Ce soutien devrait être\noffert le plus tôt possible après la commission d'une\ninfraction, qu'elle ait été\ndénoncée ou non. Ces services peuvent s'avérer\nparticulièrement importants pour décider la victime\nà dénoncer une infraction. De même, les\nvictimes peuvent avoir besoin d'un appui tant durant la\nprocédure qu'à long terme. Les services d'aide\npeuvent être assurés par des organismes\ngouvernementaux ou non gouvernementaux et ne doivent pas comporter\nde procédures et formalités excessives susceptibles\nd'en réduire l'accessibilité. Le soutien peut prendre\ndiverses formes, telles que des rencontres en face à face ou\ndes échanges à distance, par téléphone\nou d'autres moyens, afin d'optimiser la couverture\ngéographique et la disponibilité des services\nofferts. Certaines catégories de victimes, dont les victimes\nde violences sexuelles, d'infractions motivées par des\npréjugés, sexistes ou raciaux par exemple, et les\nvictimes du terrorisme ont souvent besoin de services d'aide\nspécialisés en raison des caractéristiques de\nla violence qu'elles ont subie.
\n
Bien que l'offre\nd'un soutien ne doive pas être subordonnée au\ndépôt d'une plainte par la victime auprès de la\npolice ou d'autres autorités compétentes, ces\ndernières sont souvent les mieux placées pour\ninformer la victime de la possibilité de\nbénéficier d'un appui. Les États membres\nsont donc invités à instaurer des conditions propices\nà l'orientation des victimes vers les services d'aide,\nnotamment en s'assurant que les obligations en matière de\nprotection des données puissent être\nrespectées.
\n
Droit\nd'être entendu : il est prévu de garantir\nà la victime le droit de fournir durant la procédure\npénale, des informations préliminaires et\ncomplémentaires, des avis et des éléments de\npreuve. L'étendue exacte de ce droit est laissée\nà l'appréciation du législateur national et\npeut aller du droit fondamental de communiquer avec une\nautorité compétente et de lui fournir des preuves,\nà des droits plus larges tels que le droit à la prise\nen compte des éléments de preuve produits, le droit\nde demander que des témoignages ou des\néléments de preuve soient recueillis ou le droit\nd'intervenir durant le procès.
\n
Droits en cas de\ndécision de non-poursuite : la victime pourra\nêtre en mesure de vérifier le respect des\nprocédures et règles établies et qu'une\ndécision correcte a été adoptée pour\nmettre fin à des poursuites engagées contre une\npersonne en particulier. Les mécanismes précis de\nrévision relèvent du droit national. Cependant, cette\nrévision devrait, au minimum, être effectuée\npar une personne ou autorité autre que celle qui a rendu la\ndécision initiale de ne pas poursuivre.
\n
Droit à\ndes garanties dans le contexte des services de médiation et\nd'autres services de justice réparatrice : la\njustice réparatrice englobe un éventail de services\nliés, préalables, parallèles ou\npostérieurs à la procédure pénale.\nCeux-ci peuvent être offerts en relation avec certains types\nd'infractions ou avec des auteurs adultes ou mineurs uniquement, et\npeuvent consister, par exemple, en une médiation entre la\nvictime et l'auteur, des conférences en groupe familial et\ndes cercles de détermination de la peine. Une telle\ndisposition vise à garantir que lorsque de tels services\nsont offerts, des garanties soient mises en place pour\néviter que la victime ne subisse de préjudice\nsupplémentaire du fait de ce processus. Par\nconséquent, ces services devraient accorder la\npriorité aux intérêts et aux besoins de la\nvictime, à la réparation du préjudice\nqu'elle a subi et à la prévention de tout dommage\nadditionnel. La participation de la victime devrait être\nvolontaire, ce qui implique qu'elle connaisse suffisamment bien les\nrisques et les avantages pour faire un choix éclairé.\nCela signifie également que des éléments tels\nque des déséquilibres dans les rapports de force,\nl'âge, la maturité ou la capacité\nintellectuelle de la victime, de nature à limiter ou\nà réduire son aptitude à décider en\nconnaissance de cause ou à compromettre une issue positive\npour elle, devraient être pris en considération\nlorsqu'il s'agit de renvoyer une affaire à la justice\nréparatrice et durant ce processus de réparation. Si\nles débats privés doivent en général\nêtre confidentiels, sauf accord contraire entre les parties,\ncertains éléments, tels que l'expression de menaces\ndurant ce processus, peuvent exiger leur divulgation, dans\nl'intérêt général. En définitive,\ntout accord entre les parties devrait être librement\nconclu.
\n
Droit au\nremboursement des frais : cette disposition est conforme\nà la décision-cadre de 2001 en ce qu'elle accorde aux\nvictimes qui prennent part à une procédure\npénale le droit au remboursement de leurs frais. Elle\nprévoit également ce remboursement lorsque la victime\nest présente au procès sans participer à la\nprocédure en tant que telle. L'objectif est de s'assurer que\nles victimes ne soient pas empêchées, faute de\nressources financières suffisantes, d'assister au\nprocès et de constater que justice a été\nfaite.
\n
Identification\ndes victimes vulnérables : il est prévu de\ngarantir que les victimes reçoivent un traitement\npersonnalisé et qu'un dispositif cohérent soit mis en\nplace pour identifier les victimes vulnérables qui peuvent\ndevoir faire l'objet de mesures spéciales pendant la\nprocédure pénale. Toutes les victimes de la\ncriminalité sont en soi vulnérables et\nrequièrent donc d'être traitées avec tact et\nattention. Or, certaines sont particulièrement\nexposées au risque d'une nouvelle atteinte ou\nd'intimidations de la part de la personne poursuivie ou\nsuspectée ou de ses complices. Ces victimes doivent faire\nl'objet de mesures spéciales afin de réduire au\nminimum la probabilité qu'elles subissent de nouveaux\ndommages. Une évaluation du risque d'exposition de ces\nvictimes à un tel préjudice est donc prévu,\ncompte tenu de particularités personnelles et de la nature\nou du type de l'infraction qu'elles ont subie. La majorité\ndes enfants et des adultes présentant un handicap sont\nspécialement vulnérables en raison de leurs\nparticularités. En tant que groupe, ils peuvent\nimmédiatement être considérés comme\nvulnérables et ont, dans la plupart des cas, besoin de\nmesures spéciales. Les victimes appartenant à\nd'autres catégories définies en fonction de la nature\nou du type de l'infraction, comme les victimes de violences\nsexuelles, y compris d'exploitation, et les victimes de la traite\ndes êtres humains sont également, le plus souvent,\nexposées au risque d'un nouveau préjudice durant la\nprocédure.
\n
\nParallèlement, cette disposition reconnaît que les\nvictimes sont des personnes qui réagissent\ndifféremment à une infraction et ont des besoins et\ndes fragilités variables. Une victime peut donc être\nvulnérable sans pour autant relever d'une catégorie\nspécifique de victimes vulnérables. Un dispositif\nd'évaluation personnalisée est donc mis en place pour\ns'assurer que toutes les victimes vulnérables soient\nidentifiées et dûment protégées. Cette\napproche optimise la prévention des victimisations\nsecondaires ou répétées et des intimidations,\nainsi que la possibilité offerte à la victime\nd'accéder effectivement à la justice. Il convient\ntoutefois que cette approche soit mise en œuvre dans une\nmesure proportionnée à la probabilité que des\npoursuites pénales soient engagées et que des mesures\nspécifiques soient exigées par la victime. En\nparticulier, la gravité de l'infraction commise et le\ndegré du préjudice apparent subi par la victime sont\ndes indicateurs utiles de l'ampleur que doit revêtir\nl'évaluation personnalisée. Cette évaluation\npersonnalisée devrait tendre à définir les\nbesoins de la victime au cours de la procédure et à\ndéterminer s'il est nécessaire d'orienter celle-ci\nvers des services d'aide. Les agents de services publics qui\nont les premiers contacts avec la victime lorsqu'une infraction a\nété dénoncée devraient être\nformés et avoir accès à des instructions,\noutils ou protocoles adaptés, leur permettant\nd'évaluer les besoins de la victime avec cohérence.\nL'évaluation personnalisée devrait prendre en\nconsidération des éléments comme: l'âge,\nle sexe et l'identité sexuelle, l'appartenance ethnique, la\nrace, la religion, l'état de santé, le handicap, le\nlien de parenté ou de dépendance à\nl'égard de la personne soupçonnée. Les\nvictimes d'actes de terrorisme nécessitent une attention\nparticulière lors de l'évaluation, eu égard au\nfait que les victimes peuvent relever d'un terrorisme de masse ou\nd'un terrorisme ciblant des particuliers.
\n
Droit à\nl'absence de contact entre la victime et l'auteur de\nl'infraction : l'objectif est de faire en sorte que,\nlorsqu'une victime doit être présente à une\naudience du fait de sa participation à la procédure\npénale, des mesures adaptées soient prises pour\ngarantir qu'elle ne soit pas mise en contact avec les personnes\npoursuivies ou soupçonnées. Divers moyens peuvent\nêtre utilisés à cet effet: par exemple,\nprévoir des salles d'attente distinctes ou surveiller\nl'arrivée de la victime et de la personne poursuivie. Les\nmeilleures pratiques et les instructions données aux agents\ndes services publics peuvent aussi constituer une source\nd'information importante quant aux moyens d'éviter les\ncontacts entre les parties.
\n
Droit de la\nvictime à une protection pendant son audition au cours de\nl'enquête pénale : il est prévu de\nprévenir la victimisation secondaire en garantissant que la\nvictime soit auditionnée au plus tôt et que\nl'interaction avec les autorités soit aussi aisée que\npossible, tout en limitant le nombre d'échanges inutiles\nentre la victime et celles-ci. Quant à décider du\nmoment opportun pour une audition, il convient de tenir compte\nautant que possible des besoins de la victime et de toute urgence\nliée à la collecte des preuves. La victime peut\nêtre accompagnée d'une personne de confiance qu'elle\nchoisit. Cette possibilité ne devrait être restreinte\nque dans des cas exceptionnels et uniquement à\nl'égard d'une personne particulière. La victime\ndevrait alors être autorisée à se faire\naccompagner d'une autre personne de son choix.
\n
Droit des\nvictimes vulnérables, dont les enfants, à\nbénéficier d'une protection au cours de la\nprocédure pénale : une série de\ndispositions visent à garantir que lorsque des victimes sont\nconsidérées comme risquant de subir un nouveau\npréjudice ou des intimidations, des mesures idoines soient\nprises pour éviter ce préjudice. Ces mesures\ndevraient être en place durant toute la procédure\npénale, tant pendant la phase initiale d'enquête ou\ndes poursuites que pendant le procès lui-même, et leur\nnature variera selon le stade de la procédure.
\n
Au cours de\nl'enquête pénale, les auditions de la victime\ndevraient s'accompagner d'une protection minimale. Elles\ndevraient être menées avec tact et les agents\ndevraient recevoir une formation adéquate afin de\nréduire au minimum le traumatisme. À cet effet, il\npeut s'avérer nécessaire, selon le degré de\nvulnérabilité de la victime, de ne mener les\nauditions que dans des locaux adaptés. Il peut s'agir de\nlocaux permettant les entretiens vidéo ou qui sont\nsimplement équipés, par exemple, d'un mobilier\nadapté aux enfants ou aux personnes présentant un\nhandicap.
\n
Il arrive que des\nvictimes vulnérables trouvent le processus d'audition\nextrêmement traumatisant, notamment lorsque l'infraction est\nd'ordre très personnel. L'instauration d'un climat de\nconfiance à l'égard de la personne qui procède\nà l'audition peut être importante et prendre un\ncertain temps. C'est pourquoi ces dispositions exigent que, dans la\nplupart des cas, la victime vulnérable soit\nauditionnée par la même personne. Des exceptions\nsont autorisées pour des motifs tenant à la bonne\nadministration de la justice. Pour des raisons semblables, dans les\naffaires de violence sexuelle, les victimes devraient avoir le\ndroit d'être auditionnées par une personne du\nmême sexe.
\n
Pendant le\nprocès lui-même, la protection contre les\nintimidations, qu'elles soient intentionnelles ou non, est aussi un\nélément pertinent à considérer\nlorsqu'il s'agit de déterminer les mesures de protection\nadéquates. Ces dispositions établissent des mesures\nminimales à cette fin et visent à réduire\nau minimum le traumatisme, notamment celui lié au\ntémoignage. Ils prévoient des mesures permettant\nà la victime d'éviter d'avoir un contact visuel avec\nle prévenu, ainsi qu'avec le public ou la presse. En\nparticulier, pour garantir le respect des droits fondamentaux d'une\npersonne poursuivie ou suspectée, la décision de\nprendre ou non ces mesures est laissée à\nl'appréciation du juge. Cependant, le fait que la victime\nsoit un enfant, une personne présentant un handicap, qu'elle\nait subi des violences sexuelles ou ait été\nlivrée à la traite des êtres humains devrait,\navec l'évaluation personnalisée, être une\nindication claire de la nécessité d'une mesure de\nprotection. Étant donné la\nvulnérabilité particulière des enfants, des\nmesures supplémentaires devraient également\nêtre prévues et appliquées en temps normal. Il\nest également prévu que les auditions soient\nenregistrées sur vidéo et que ces enregistrements\npuissent être utilisés comme preuves au tribunal.
\n
Formation des\npraticiens : il est prévu de définir les\nobligations en matière de formation des agents des services\npublics qui sont en contact avec les victimes. La formation doit\nporter sur des éléments qui permettront aux agents de\ntraiter les victimes avec respect, de définir leurs besoins\nde protection et de leur fournir des informations adéquates\nde nature à les aider à faire face à la\nprocédure et à faire valoir leurs droits. Cette\nformation devrait porter sur des questions telles que la\nconnaissance des effets néfastes des infractions sur les\nvictimes et le risque de causer une victimisation secondaire, les\ncompétences et les savoirs, dont certaines mesures et\ntechniques spéciales, nécessaires pour aider les\nvictimes et réduire au minimum les traumatismes qui leur\nsont causés (victimisation secondaire, prévention des\nintimidations, menaces…). Il est en outre prévu que\nles membres des services d'aide aux victimes ou de justice\nréparatrice aient un degré de formation suffisant, de\nsorte qu'ils traitent les victimes avec respect et\nimpartialité et que leurs prestations soient conformes aux\nnormes professionnelles en vigueur.
\n
INCIDENCE\nBUDGÉTAIRE : la proposition n'a pas d'incidence sur le\nbudget de l'UE.
\n
\n
The European\nParliament adopted a legislative resolution on the draft Council\ndecision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European\nUnion and Russia on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles\nbetween the European Union and Russia.
\n
Parliament gave its\nconsent to the conclusion of the Agreement not without recalling\nthat the deal on car components protects EU auto-parts companies\nhit by restrictive Russian measures that will remain in force even\nafter Russia joins the WTO. These measures give foreign auto\nmanufacturers incentives to relocate to Russia, and could\ndiscriminate against Russian imports of foreign car components.
\n
Under the\nagreement, if EU exports of car parts fall by 3% a year, Russia\nwill reduce its import duties for EU car parts by a commensurate\namount.
\n
\n
The European\nParliament adopted a legislative resolution on the draft Council\ndecision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European\nUnion and Russia on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles\nbetween the European Union and Russia.
\n
Parliament gave its\nconsent to the conclusion of the Agreement not without recalling\nthat the deal on car components protects EU auto-parts companies\nhit by restrictive Russian measures that will remain in force even\nafter Russia joins the WTO. These measures give foreign auto\nmanufacturers incentives to relocate to Russia, and could\ndiscriminate against Russian imports of foreign car components.
\n
Under the\nagreement, if EU exports of car parts fall by 3% a year, Russia\nwill reduce its import duties for EU car parts by a commensurate\namount.
\n
\n
Having examined the revenue and expenditure accounts\nfor the financial year 2010 and the balance sheet at 31 December\n2010 of the European Agency for the Management of Operational\nCooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the\nEuropean Union, as well as the Court of Auditors' report on the\nannual accounts of the Agency for the financial year 2010,\naccompanied by the Agency's replies to the Court's observations,\nthe Council recommends the European Parliament to give a discharge\nto the Executive Director of the Agency in respect of the\nimplementation of the budget for the financial year\n2010.
\n
However, the Council considers that observations made\nin the Court of Auditor's report call for a certain number of\nremarks:
\n
\n- the Council welcomes the Court's opinion that, in all\nmaterial respects, the Agency's annual accounts fairly present the\nfinancial position as at 31 December 2010 and the results of\noperations and cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance\nwith the provisions of the Agency's Financial Regulation, and that\nthe underlying transactions for that financial year are legal and\nregular;
\n- as in previous years, the Council invites the Agency\nto improve its planning and monitoring of activities in order to\nreduce the high amount of appropriations carried over to the\nnext financial year, in line with the budgetary principle of\nannuality;
\n- it encourages the Agency\nto tackle the weaknesses detected in the system for reconciling\nsuppliers' statements with the corresponding records at the\nAgency.
\n
\n
\n
The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report\nby Monica Luisa MACOVEI (PPE, RO) on discharge in respect of the\nbudget of the European Agency for the Management of Operational\nCooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the\nEuropean Union (FRONTEX) and called on the European Parliament to\ngrant the Executive Director of the Agency discharge in respect of\nthe implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year\n2010.
\n
Noting that the Court of Auditors stated that it has\nobtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the\nfinancial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying\ntransactions are legal and regular, Members approve the closure of\nthe Agency’s accounts. However,\nthey make a number of recommendations that need to be taken into\naccount when the discharge is granted, in addition to the general\nrecommendations that appear in the draft resolution on performance, financial management and\ncontrol of EU agencies:
\n
\n- Budget and Financial Management: Members note that the Agency only used 69% of\npayment appropriations in 2010 and that there have been significant\ncarryovers since 2006; Whilst taking note of the justifications\ngiven by the Agency, namely the need to ensure continuity in the\nAgency's operational activities and to allocate funds for\ndeployment in the first quarter of the following year, the\ncommittee reiterates that the practice of carryovers of\nappropriations should be strongly curtailed and should not hamper\nsound financial management practices. It requests that the Agency\nfollow the principle of annuality in the future. It also wonders\nwhether it would not be more responsible for the budgetary\nauthorities to take greater care in the future when deciding on\nincreases in the Agency's budget in the light of the time needed to\ncarry out new activities.
\n- Public procurement and grants: Members note that according to the Final Accounts,\nthe Agency has two ongoing litigation cases related to tender\nprocedures and that the applicants have claimed damages for a total\namount of EUR 10 794 806. They urge the Agency to regularly inform\nthe discharge authority of developments in these two\ncases.
\n- Performance: the\ncommittee calls on the Agency to develop further coherence in the\nstrategic and annual planning of its operations. It notes, in fact,\nthat the objectives of the Annual Work Programme (AWP) for 2010 are\nnot clearly linked with those for 2010 in the Multi-Annual Plan\n2010-2013. It notes that discharge in respect of the implementation\nof the budget of the Agency should continue to be based on its\nperformance throughout the year.
\n- Internal audit: Members\nacknowledge that in 2010 the Internal Audit Service (IAS) performed\nan audit on operational planning and that the IAS still needs to\nreview the Agency's implementation of seven \"very important\"\nrecommendations from the IAS's previous audit. They call on the\nAgency to implement the recommendations.
\n
\n
\n
PURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2010, as part of the 2010 discharge\nprocedure.
\n
Analysis of the accounts of the European Agency for\nthe Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders\nof the Members States (FRONTEX).
\n
CONTENT: this Commission document sets out the\nconsolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the\nfinancial year 2010 as prepared on the basis of the information\npresented by the institutions, organisations and bodies of the EU,\nin accordance with Article 129 (2) of the Financial Regulation\napplicable to the EU's General Budget, including the European\nAgency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the\nExternal Borders of the Members States (FRONTEX).
\n
In 2010, the tasks and budget of this agency were as\nfollows:
\n
\n- description of the Agency's tasks: FRONTEX, which is located in Warsaw, was established\nin 2004 by Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004.\nThe Agency's main task is to coordinate Member States' activities\nin the field of the management of external borders (support for\noperational cooperation, technical and operational assistance, risk\nanalysis);
\n- FRONTEX budget for the 2010 financial\nyear: the\nAgency's budget for 2010 amounted to EUR 93 million, (compared to\nEUR 89 million the previous year). The number of staff employed by\nthe Agency at the end of the year was 279 as compared with 226 the\nprevious year.
\n
\n
The complete version of the Agency's final accounts\nmay be found at the following address: http://www.frontex.europa.eu/budget_and_finance
\n
\n
Le Parlement\neuropéen a adopté une décision concernant la\ndécharge à octroyer au directeur exécutif de\nl'Agence européenne pour la gestion de la coopération\nopérationnelle aux frontières extérieures des\nÉtats membres de l'Union européenne (FRONTEX) sur\nl'exécution du budget de l’Agence pour l'exercice 2010.\nLa décision d’octroyer la décharge vaut\négalement clôture des comptes pour cette agence\ncommunautaire.
\n
Constatant que la\nCour des comptes avait indiqué avoir obtenu l’assurance\nraisonnable que les comptes annuels de l’Agence pour\nl’exercice 2010 étaient fiables et que les\nopérations sous–jacentes étaient légales\net régulières, le Parlement a adopté une\nrésolution contenant une série de recommandations\ndont il faut tenir compte au moment de l’octroi de la\ndécharge, outre les recommandations générales\nfigurant dans la résolution\nconcernant la performance, la gestion financière et le\ncontrôle des agences.
\n
Ces recommandations\npeuvent se résumer comme suit :
\n
\n- Gestion\nbudgétaire et financière : le Parlement note\nque le niveau des paiements dans le budget 2010 s'est\namélioré, passant de 61% en 2009 à 69% en\n2010. Il note en outre que les niveaux des paiements dans le budget\nopérationnel 2010 ont atteint 79%, contre 65% en\n2009 ;
\n- Reports de\ncrédits : le Parlement note que des reports\nimportants de crédits ont encore caractérisé\nl’exécution budgétaire de l’Agence et ce,\ndepuis 2006. Bien que comprenant les justifications\napportées par l'Agence, à savoir la\nnécessité d'assurer la continuité des\nactivités opérationnelles et d'octroyer des moyens de\ndéploiement pour le 1er trimestre de l'exercice\nsuivant, le Parlement rappelle que la pratique du report de\ncrédits doit être aussi limitée que possible et\nqu'elle ne doit pas empêcher le respect des bonnes pratiques\nde gestion financière. Il demande donc, qu'à\nl'avenir, l'Agence respecte le principe d'annualité\nbudgétaire. Il appelle également\nl’autorité budgétaire à\nréfléchir avant toute augmentation du budget de\nl’Agence, compte tenu du temps nécessaire pour mettre\nen œuvre les activités nouvelles ;
\n- Marchés\npublics et subventions : le Parlement constate que,\nd'après les comptes définitifs, l'Agence a deux\nlitiges en cours, liés à des procédures\nd'appel d'offres et que les requérants ont introduit des\ndemandes de dommages-intérêts pour un total de 10.794\n806 EUR. Il invite l'Agence à informer\nrégulièrement l'autorité de décharge\nsur l'évolution de ces deux affaires ;
\n- \nRésultats : le Parlement appelle l'Agence\nà améliorer la cohérence dans la planification\nstratégique annuelle de ses opérations. Il note, en\neffet, que les objectifs du programme de travail annuel pour 2010\nne sont pas clairement liés à ceux du plan\npluriannuel 2010-2013. D’une manière\ngénérale, le Parlement considère que la\ndécharge sur l'exécution du budget de l'Agence\ndevrait continuer d'être fondée sur\nl'évaluation de ses activités tout au long de\nl'exercice ;
\n- Audit\ninterne : le Parlement note qu'en 2010, le Service d'audit\ninterne (SAI) a procédé à un audit sur la\nplanification opérationnelle et a évalué la\nmise en œuvre, par l'Agence, de certaines recommandations\n\"très importantes\" issues des audits\nprécédents. Il appelle dès lors à la\nmise en œuvre de ces recommandations.
\n
\n
\n
OBJECTIF :\nprésentation par la Commission des comptes annuels\nconsolidés de l'Union européenne pour l’exercice\n2010 – étape de la procédure de décharge\n2010.
\n
Analyse des comptes\nde l’Agence européenne pour la gestion de la\ncoopération opérationnelle aux frontières\nextérieures des États membres (FRONTEX).
\n
CONTENU : le\nprésent document de la Commission porte sur les comptes\nconsolidés de l’Union européenne relatifs\nà l’exercice 2010 élaborés sur la base\ndes informations fournies par les institutions, organismes et\nagences de l’UE, conformément à l’article\n129, par. 2, du règlement financier applicable au budget\ngénéral de l’Union, en ce compris par\nl’Agence européenne pour la gestion de la\ncoopération opérationnelle aux frontières\nextérieures des États membres (FRONTEX).
\n
Pour 2010, les\ntâches et budget de cette agence se présentaient comme\nsuit :
\n
\n- description des\ntâches de l’Agence : FRONTEX, dont le\nsiège est situé à Varsovie, a\nété créée en vertu du règlement\n(CE) n° 2007/2004 du Conseil et a pour principale mission\nde coordonner les activités des États membres en\nmatière de gestion des frontières extérieures\n(soutien à la coopération opérationnelle,\nassistance technique et opérationnelle, analyse des\nrisques) ;
\n- budget de\nl’Agence pour l’exercice 2010 : le budget 2010\nde l’Agence s’élevait à 93 millions EUR\ncontre 89 millions EUR en 2009. À la fin de l’exercice\n2010, l’Agence employait 279 agents, contre 226\nl’année précédente.
\n
\n
Pour\nconnaître le détail des comptes définitifs de\nl’Agence se reporter à l'adresse suivante:
\n
http://www.frontex.europa.eu/budget_and_finance
\n
\n
The European Parliament adopted a decision concerning\nthe discharge to be granted to the Executive Director of the\nEuropean Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at\nthe External Borders of the Member States of the European Union\n(FRONTEX) in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s\nbudget for 2010. The decision to grant the discharge also closes\nthe accounts for the Agency for that year.
\n
Noting that the Court of Auditors stated that it has\nobtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the\nfinancial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying\ntransactions are legal and regular, Parliament adopted a resolution\ncontaining a number of recommendations\nthat need to be taken into account when the discharge is granted,\nin addition to the general recommendations that appear in\nthe resolution on performance, financial management and\ncontrol of EU agencies:
\n
\n- Budget and Financial Management: Parliament notes that the level of payments of the\n2010 budget improved from 61 % in 2009 to 69 % in 2010.\nMoreover it notes from the Agency that the payment levels for the\n2010 operational budget reached 79 % compared with 65 % in\n2009.
\n- Parliament notes that the Agency only used 69% of\npayment appropriations in 2010 and that there have been significant\ncarryovers since 2006. Whilst taking note of the justifications\ngiven by the Agency, namely the need to ensure continuity in the\nAgency's operational activities and to allocate funds for\ndeployment in the first quarter of the following year, it\nreiterates that the practice of carryovers of appropriations should\nbe strongly curtailed and should not hamper sound financial\nmanagement practices. It requests that the Agency follow the\nprinciple of annuality in the future. It also wonders whether it\nwould not be more responsible for the budgetary authorities to take\ngreater care in the future when deciding on increases in the\nAgency's budget in the light of the time needed to carry out new\nactivities.
\n- Public procurement and grants: Parliament notes that according to the Final\nAccounts, the Agency has two ongoing litigation cases related to\ntender procedures and that the applicants have claimed damages for\na total amount of EUR 10 794 806. It urges the Agency to regularly\ninform the discharge authority of developments in these two\ncases.
\n- Performance: Parliament\ncalls on the Agency to develop further coherence in the strategic\nand annual planning of its operations. It notes, in fact, that the\nobjectives of the Annual Work Programme (AWP) for 2010 are not\nclearly linked with those for 2010 in the Multi-Annual Plan\n2010-2013. It notes that discharge in respect of the implementation\nof the budget of the Agency should continue to be based on its\nperformance throughout the year.
\n
\n
\n- Internal audit:\nParliament acknowledges that in 2010 the Internal Audit Service\n(IAS) performed an audit on operational planning and that the IAS\nstill needs to review the Agency's implementation of seven \"very\nimportant\" recommendations from the IAS's previous audit. They call\non the Agency to implement the recommendations.
\n
\n
\n
En adoptant le\nrapport de Monica Luisa MACOVEI (PPE, RO) sur la décharge à octroyer\nà l'Agence européenne pour la gestion de la\ncoopération opérationnelle aux frontières\nextérieures des États membres de l'Union\neuropéenne (FRONTEX), la commission du contrôle\nbudgétaire appelle le Parlement européen à\noctroyer la décharge au directeur exécutif de\nl’Agence sur l'exécution du budget de l’Agence\npour l'exercice 2010.
\n
Constatant que la\nCour des comptes avait indiqué avoir obtenu l’assurance\nraisonnable que les comptes annuels de l’Agence pour\nl’exercice 2010 étaient fiables et que les\nopérations sous–jacentes étaient légales\net régulières, les députés approuvent\nla clôture des comptes de l’Agence. Ils font toutefois\nune série de recommandations dont il faut tenir compte au\nmoment de l’octroi de la décharge, outre les\nrecommandations générales figurant dans le projet\nde résolution concernant la performance, la gestion\nfinancière et le contrôle des agences :
\n
\n- Gestion\nbudgétaire et financière : les\ndéputés notent que l'Agence n’a utilisé\nque 69% des crédits de paiements en 2010 et que des reports\nimportants de crédit ont encore caractérisés\nl’exécution budgétaire de l’Agence et ce,\ndepuis 2006. Bien que comprenant les justifications\napportées par l'Agence, à savoir la\nnécessité d'assurer la continuité des\nactivités opérationnelles et d'octroyer des moyens de\ndéploiement pour le 1er trimestre de l'exercice\nsuivant, les députés rappellent que la pratique du\nreport de crédits doit être limitée le plus\npossible et qu'elle ne doit pas empêcher le respect des\nbonnes pratiques de gestion financière. Ils demandent donc,\nqu'à l'avenir, l'Agence respecte le principe\nd'annualité budgétaire. Ils appellent\négalement l’autorité budgétaire à\nréfléchir avant toute augmentation du budget de\nl’Agence, compte tenu du temps nécessaire pour mettre\nen œuvre les activités nouvelles ;
\n- Marchés\npublics et subventions : les députés\nconstatent que, d'après les comptes définitifs,\nl'Agence a deux litiges en cours, liés à des\nprocédures d'appel d'offre et que les requérants ont\nintroduit des demandes de dommages-intérêts pour un\ntotal de 10.794 806 EUR. Ils invitent l'Agence à informer\nrégulièrement l'autorité de décharge\nsur l'évolution de ces deux affaires ;
\n- \nRésultats : les députés appellent\nl'Agence à améliorer la cohérence dans la\nplanification stratégique annuelle de ses opérations.\nIls notent, en effet, que les objectifs du programme de travail\nannuel pour 2010 ne sont pas clairement liés à ceux\ndu plan pluriannuel 2010-2013. D’une manière\ngénérale, les députés\nconsidèrent que la décharge sur l'exécution du\nbudget de l'Agence devrait continuer d'être fondée sur\nl'évaluation de ses activités tout au long de\nl'exercice ;
\n- Audit\ninterne : les députés notent qu'en 2010, le\nService d'audit interne (SAI) a procédé à un\naudit sur la planification opérationnelle et a\névalué la mise en œuvre, par l'Agence, de\ncertaines recommandations \"très importantes\" issues des\naudits précédents. Ils appellent dès lors\nà la mise en œuvre de ces recommandations.
\n
\n
\n
PURPOSE: presentation of the EU Court of\nAuditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Agency\nfor the Management of Operation Cooperation at the External Borders\nof the Member States (FRONTEX), together with the Agency’s\nreply.
\n
CONTENT: in accordance with the tasks conferred on the\nCourt of Auditors by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion, the Court presents to the European Parliament and to the\nCouncil, in the context of the discharge procedure, a Statement of\nAssurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts of each\ninstitution, body or agency of the EU, and the legality and\nregularity of the transactions underlying them, on the basis of an\nindependent external audit.
\n
This audit concerned, amongst others, the annual\naccounts of FRONTEX.
\n
In the Court’s opinion, FRONTEX’s Annual\nAccounts fairly present, in all material respects, its financial\nposition as of 31 December 2010 and the results of its\noperations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in\naccordance with the provisions of its Financial\nRegulation.
\n
The Court also considers that the transactions\nunderlying the annual accounts of FRONTEX for the financial\nyear ended 31 December 2010 are, in all material respects, legal\nand regular.
\n
The report confirms that FRONTEX’s 2010 budget\namounted to EUR 93 million, and that the number of staff it\nemployed at the end of the year was 279.
\n
The report also makes a series of observations on the\nbudgetary and financial management of FRONTEX, accompanied by the\nlatter’s response. The main observations may be summarised as\nfollows:
\n
The Court’s\nobservations:
\n
\n- budgetary and financial management:an amount of 26,5\nmillion euro, representing 28% of the available budget, was carried\nforward to 2011. Only 12 million euro of this amount was matched by\naccruals. This situation is at odds with the principle of\nannuality.
\n- weaknesses were noted in\nthe system for reconciling suppliers' statements with the\ncorresponding records at the Agency.
\n
\n
The Agency’s\nresponses:
\n
\n- Frontex will continue to decrease as much as possible\nthe volume of carried forward appropriations by strengthening its\nmonitoring of joint activities in order to adjust the grants as\nearly as possible.
\n- Most of the public entities do not have centralised\naccounting systems and some of them do not implement accrual based\naccounting, making difficult the process of vendor balances'\nreconciliation. Frontex will take contact with the national\nauthorities to try to implement alternative procedures in view to\nreconcile its balances with those of its suppliers.
\n
\n
Lastly the Court of Auditors’ report contains a\nsummary of the College’s activities in 2010. These may\nbe described as follows:
\n
\n- risk analyses and publication of analytical reports\nfor FRONTEX management, other organisations or\ninstitutions;
\n- joint operation actions (17 joint operations and 40\njoint return operations, as well as the Rapid Border Intervention\nTeam Operation in Greece);
\n- training activities: 176 activities with the\nparticipation of 4015 persons;
\n- launch of the FRONTEX Situation Centre which delivered\n500 situation reports, early alerts notices and 14 mission\nawareness reports to internal and external customers;
\n- dissemination of daily\nnews bulletins;
\n- implementation of the\nFRONTEX One-Stop-Shop, a web-based information portal, used by 30\ncountries and 900 users.
\n
\n