.
Skip to content.
Skip to content.
Meetings Calendar 2006
January
.
February
.
March
.
April
.
May
.
June
.
March
  Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su  
 
.
.
1
.
2
.
3
.
4
.
5
.
 
  6
.
7
.
8
.
9
.
10
.
11
.
12
.
 
  13
.
14
.
15
.
16
.
17
.
18
.
19
.
 
  20
.
21
.
22
.
23
.
24
.
25
.
26
.
 
  27
.
28
.
29
.
30
.
31
.
.
.
 
 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 
 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 
Service
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Information about mutual recognition and enforcement of sentences of imprisonment

 

1. Austria, together with Finland and Sweden, has tabled a proposal for a Framework Decision on the mutual recognition and enforcement of sentences of imprisonment in the EU.

2. This proposal provides for the enforcement of sentences of imprisonment imposed in a Member State by the home country of the sentenced person on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition. In the absence of certain (limited) grounds for refusal, the State of nationality of the convicted person and the State in which that person has his or her permanent legal residence shall be obliged to accept him or her for the purpose of enforcement of the sentence imposed.

3. In deviation to the Council of Europe-Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons of 21 March 1983, the consent of the convicted person shall not be required; however, he or she has to be heard.

4. Recognition and enforcement of the final sentence of imprisonment takes place on the basis of the judgment and a form (the so-called Certificate), which has to contain all information necessary for taking the decision.

5. Special time limits apply to the taking the decision on the enforcement and for the transfer of the sentenced person to the executing State.

6. In principle, the sentence of imprisonment shall be enforced as pronounced by the sentencing State. An adaptation of the sentence to the maximum penalty provided for a similar offence under the law of the executing State is only admissible in exceptional cases.

7. The initiative is designed to further the social rehabilitation of offenders, since it is more appropriate for measures of rehabilitation to be taken in a State where the convicted person understands the language and to which he or she has close personal links.

8. The commission supports the initiative by AT, S and FIN. CY, UK, D, P, LET, SP, GR, I and MT welcomed the initiative as well.

9. Several Member States are, however, of the opinion that a transfer to the home country for the purpose of enforcement of sentence shall only take place with the consent of the sentenced person.

10. The initiative, which has been tabled inter alia by Austria, will be dealt with on a priority basis under the Austrian Presidency in order to make as much progress as possible. Certain political questions will be discussed at the April- and June-Meetings of the JAI- Council.

 

 

Date: 17.02.2006