Traduction de «faits constitutifs de délit » (Français → Anglais) :

a Member State may, until 1 January 2009, instead of imposing a penalty, notify the facts of the infringement to the competent authority in the Member State or the third country where the undertaking is established or where the driver has his place of employment.

It is high time we addressed appalling cases such as the Dutroux case in Belgium, where the inadequate legal framework means that it is still impossible to prove the constituent elements of the crime and hold the trial which has been pending for the last four years, which is why the Union initiative to stamp out this vile crime and create a common reference framework to strengthen judicial and police cooperation between the Member States and bring these criminal syndicates to justice is all the more important.

. whereas, in the resolution of 17 July 1997 on Court of Auditors' Special Report No 1/96 on the MED programmes, it considered it essential for the Community to have an independent anti-fraud unit which would, pending the establishment of a European prosecution body to deal with fraud and corruption cases involving the Community budget, liaise with national courts and inform them of the facts concerning offences or crimes discovered in the course of its inquiries,

10. Considers it essential for the Community to have a more independent anti-fraud unit which would, pending the establishment of a European court to try fraud and corruption cases involving the Community budget, liaise with national courts and inform them of the facts concerning offences or crimes discovered in the course of its inquiries;

Full mutual recognition as envisaged to be achieved among EU Member States would have to be based on the principle that a decision taken by no matter which authority in the EU fully deals with the issue and that no further decision needs to be taken at all, i.e. the principle of exhaustion. In other words, if someone was convicted or acquitted [14] for a criminal offence committed in Member State A, he should not be prosecuted for the same facts, however they may be qualified, in Member State B, even if Member State B has jurisdiction over the facts (because e.g. the person in question is a national of Member State B) and even if in Memb ...[+++]er State B, a different judgement could have been pronounced (e.g. because the offence in question can be punished by longer deprivation of liberty).

The latter Member State would then be obliged to recognise the former Member State's decision, and under certain circumstances would have to enforce a sentence handed down for an act that is not an offence under its law.