Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence

• Published date: 02 August 2003
• Subject Matter: giustizia e affari interni,justicia y asuntos de interior,justice et affaires intérieures
• Official Gazette Publication: Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea, L 196, 02 agosto 2003,Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea, L 196, 02 de agosto de 2003,Journal officiel de l’Union européenne, L 196, 02 août 2003

2003F0577 — EN — 02.08.2003 — 000.001

---

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents

►B COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence (OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p.45)

Corrected by:

►C1 Corrigendum, OJ L 374, 27.12.2006, p. 20 (03F0/77R)

---

▼B

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2003/577/JHA

of 22 July 2003

on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(a) and Article 34(2)(b) thereof,

Having regard to the initiative by the Republic of France, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Belgium ( 1 ),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament ( 2 ),

Whereas:

(1) The European Council, meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, endorsed the principle of mutual recognition, which should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union.

(2) The principle of mutual recognition should also apply to pre-trial orders, in particular to those which would enable competent judicial authorities quickly to secure evidence and to seize property which are easily movable.

(3) On 29 November 2000 the Council, in accordance with the Tampere conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters, giving first priority (measures 6 and 7) to the adoption of an instrument applying the principle of mutual recognition to the freezing of evidence and property.

(4) Cooperation between Member States, based on the principle of mutual recognition and immediate execution of judicial decisions, presupposes confidence that the decisions to be recognised and enforced will always be taken in compliance with the principles of legality, subsidiarity and proportionality.

(5) Rights granted to the parties or bona fide interested third parties should be preserved.

(6) This Framework Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision may be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to freeze property for which a freezing order has been issued when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the freezing order is issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons. This Framework Decision does not prevent any Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media,

HAS ADOPTED THIS FRAMEWORK DECISION:

TITLE I

SCOPE

Article 1

Objective

The purpose of the Framework Decision is to establish the rules under which a Member State shall recognise and execute in its territory a freezing order issued by a judicial authority of another Member State in the framework of criminal proceedings. It shall not have the effect of amending the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty.

Article 2

Definitions

For the purposes of this Framework Decision:

(a) ‘issuing State’ shall mean the Member State in which a judicial authority, as defined in the national law of the issuing State, has made, validated or in any way confirmed a freezing order in the framework of criminal proceedings;

(b) ‘executing State’ shall mean the Member State in whose territory the property or evidence is located;

▼C1

(c) ‘freezing order’ shall mean any measure taken by a competent judicial authority in the issuing State in order provisionally to prevent the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal of property that could be subject to confiscation or evidence;

▼B

(d) ‘property’ includes property of any description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, and legal documents and instruments evidencing title to or interest in such property, which the competent judicial authority in the issuing State considers:

— is the proceeds of an offence referred to in Article 3, or equivalent to either the full value or part of the value of such proceeds, or

— constitutes the instrumentalities or the objects of such an offence;

(e) ‘evidence’ shall mean objects, documents or data which could be produced as evidence in criminal proceedings concerning an offence referred to in Article 3.

Article 3

Offences

1. This Framework Decision applies to freezing orders issued for purposes of:

(a) securing evidence, or

(b) subsequent confiscation of property.

2. The following offences, as they are defined by the law of the issuing State, and if they are punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence of a maximum period of at least three years shall not be subject to verification of the double criminality of the act:

— participation in a criminal organisation,

— terrorism,

— trafficking in human beings,

— sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,

— illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,

— illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,

— corruption,

— fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests,

— laundering of the proceeds of crime,

— counterfeiting currency, including of the euro,

— computer-related crime,

— environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,

— facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,

— murder, grievous bodily injury,

— illicit trade in human organs and tissue,

— kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,

— racism and xenophobia,

— organised or armed robbery,

— illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,

— swindling,

— racketeering and extortion,

— counterfeiting and piracy of products,

— forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,

— forgery of means of payment,

— illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,

— illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,

— trafficking in stolen vehicles,

— rape,

— arson,

— crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal,

— unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,

— sabotage.

3. The Council may decide, at any time, acting unanimously after consultation of the European Parliament under the conditions laid down in Article 39(1) of the Treaty, to add other categories of offence to the list contained in paragraph 2. The Council shall examine, in the light of the report submitted by the Commission pursuant to Article 14 of this Framework Decision, whether the list should be extended or amended.

4. For cases not covered by paragraph 2, the executing State may subject the recognition and enforcement...