Translation of "mandat de contrôle " (French → English) :

Where the execution of a European Evidence Warrant under Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European Evidence Warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters (1) requires search or seizure, the Federal Republic of Germany reserves the right under Article 23(4) of that Framework Decision to make execution subject to verification of double criminality in the case of the offences relating to terrorism, computer-related crime, racism and xenophobia, sabotage, racketeering and extortion and swindling listed in Article 14(2) of that Framework Decision, ...[+++]unless the issuing authority has stated that the offence in question meets the following criteria under the law of the issuing State:

4. Germany may by a declaration reserve its right to make the execution of an EEW subject to verification of double criminality in cases referred to in Article 14(2) relating to terrorism, computer-related crime, racism and xenophobia, sabotage, racketeering and extortion or swindling if it is necessary to carry out a search or seizure for the execution of the EEW, except where the issuing authority has declared that the offence concerned under the law of the issuing State falls within the scope of criteria indicated in the declaration.

In this context, discussions in Council arising from the conclusions of the Member State evaluations[22] show that there is general agreement among Member States that a proportionality check is necessary to prevent EAWs from being issued for offences which, although they fall within the scope of Article 2(1)[23] of the Council Framework Decision on the EAW, are not serious enough to justify the measures and cooperation which the execution of an EAW requires.

The Commission has received representations from European and national parliamentarians, defence lawyers, citizens and civil society groups highlighting a number of problems with the operation of the EAW: no entitlement to legal representation in the issuing state during the surrender proceedings in the executing state; detention conditions in some Member States combined with sometimes lengthy pre-trial detention for surrendered persons and the non-uniform application of a proportionality check by issuing states, resulting in requests for surrender for relatively minor offences that, in the absence of a proportionality check in the exec ...[+++]uting state, must be executed.

In this context, discussions in Council arising from the conclusions of the Member State evaluations[22] show that there is general agreement among Member States that a proportionality check is necessary to prevent EAWs from being issued for offences which, although they fall within the scope of Article 2(1)[23] of the Council Framework Decision on the EAW, are not serious enough to justify the measures and cooperation which the execution of an EAW requires.

2. Without prejudice to the supervision effected by the Member States in accordance with national provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action and without prejudice to Article 248 of the Treaty, or to any inspection organised on the basis of Article 279(c) of the Treaty, authorised representatives appointed by the Commission to carry out inspections on the spot shall have access to the books and all other documents, including information created or stored in electronic form, relating to expenditure financed by the Fund.