Translation of "Violation des lois réglementaires à caractère non pénal " (French → English) :

In view of the analysis, the Commission asked Member States to report on "Existing national law establishing as a criminal offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation of trafficking in human beings; who is precisely criminalised; if criminalisation for all forms of exploitation is envisaged; if legislation requires proving the element of knowledge that the person is a victim of trafficking and how it impacts the applicability of the legislation; what measures were taken to ensure that the public is aware of the law to ensure better implementation; available statistical data on prosecutions and convictions and h ...[+++]urdles faced; if there is no existing national law, what are the reasons and what alternatives are in place to fulfil the obligation of considering criminalisation; how they assess the impact of such laws and if they have relevant suggestions; what consultation processes are in place and; if they have commissioned any evaluation and research of such laws".

Is a national law compatible with the obligation of a Member State to provide for the effective prosecution of criminal offences by customs officials if that law provides for criminal proceedings brought against customs officials — for participation in a conspiracy to commit corruption offences while performing their professional duties (accepting bribes for non-performance of customs inspections), and for specific bribery offences and concealment of bribes received — to be terminated, without the court having examined the charges bro ...[+++]ught, under the following conditions: (a) two years have elapsed since the accused was charged; (b) the accused has lodged a request for the pre-trial investigation to be concluded; (c) the court has given the prosecutor a period of three months to conclude the pre-trial investigation; (d) during that period, the prosecutor has committed ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ (failure properly to notify a supplementary charge, failure to disclose the investigation file, contradictory indictment); (e) the court has given the prosecutor a further period of one month to remedy those ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; ([f]) the prosecutor has failed to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within that time-limit — albeit that the infringements committed within the first three-month period and the failure to remedy them within the subsequent one-month period are attributable both to the prosecutor (failure to remove contradictions in the indictment; failure to take real action for most of those periods) and also to the defence (breach of the duty to cooperate with respect to notification of the charge and inspection of the investigation file due to the hospitalisation of the accused and claims regarding the lawyers’ other professional commitments); ([g]) the accused has acquired a subjective right to the termination of the criminal proceedings on account of the failure to reme ...

Can Articles 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the principle of legal certainty enshrined in European Union (‘EU’) law and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that set out in Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004, which provides that, in the event of failure to observe the principle of the primacy of EU law, it is possible to revise decisions of national courts only in the context of administrative law proceedings ...[+++]and which does not allow decisions of national courts made in other areas (civil, criminal, commercial, and so on) to be revised in the event that such decisions are inconsistent with that principle?

whereas the waiver of immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser concerns alleged offences related to illegal access to a computer system pursuant to Article 118a of the Austrian Penal Code (StGB), a breach of telecommunications secrecy pursuant to Article 119 StGB, unlawfully intercepted data pursuant to Article 119a StGB, unauthorised use of a recording or recording equipment pursuant to Article 120(2) StGB and infringement of Article 51 of the 2000 Data Protection Act;

Welcomes new radio and TV laws which provide for several positive developments such as an increase in the percentage that foreign entities may lawfully own in Turkish media companies (50 %, up from 25 %), but expresses concern at the fact that broadcasting may be stopped on grounds of national security without a court order or a ruling by a judge; notes with concern the practice of bringing criminal prosecutions – especially under Article 285 of the Penal Code on ‘breaching the confidentiality of a criminal investigation’ and Article 288 on ‘attempting to influence the judiciary’ – against journalists who communicate evidence of hum ...[+++]an rights violations or raise other issues in the public interest; considers the criminalisation of opinions as a key obstacle to the protection of human rights in Turkey and deplores disproportionate restriction of the freedoms of expression, association and assembly; urges Turkey to comply rigorously with its international human rights obligations in this respect by amending its relevant legislation and by training its police and judiciary;

An infringement of such legislation would not only result in administrative or penal sanctions, but also, if damage results from it, in an obligation on the causer (polluter) to restore the damage or pay compensation for the lost value of the injured asset.