Examples of using Framework decisions in English and their translations into Croatian
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
Framework Decisions(FD) by the Member States.
This Directive aims to amend andexpand the provisions of Framework Decisions 2001/500/JHA and 2005/212/JHA.
Framework Decisions do not entail direct effect.
Moreover, Member States have little practical experience in the application of the Framework Decisions so far.
Link between Framework Decisions and the European arrest warrant.
This report therefore focuses on selected Articles that form the core part of the Framework Decisions in the light of their aims.
Background to the Framework Decisions: a coherent and complementary legislative package.
This is also due to the fact that many Member States have not yet complied with their obligation to transpose the Framework Decisions.
Both Framework Decisions are based on the principle of mutual recognition and work in a similar way.
The Commission urges all those Member States that have not yet done so to take swift measures to implement these Framework Decisions to the fullest extent.
Those Framework Decisions should be partially replaced for the Member States bound by this Directive.
The experience has shown that not all the Member States have transposed the Framework Decisions on mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders until now.
Framework Decisions have to be implemented by Member States as is the case with any other element of the EU acquis.
Legally binding acts adopted by legislative procedure(such as regulations,directives and framework decisions) are referred to as legislative acts or"legislation".
This Regulation will replace Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2006/783/JHA for the Member States that are bound by it.
It is important to find the right balance between respect of the sentence originally imposed andthe legal traditions of Member States so that conflicts that could adversely affect the functioning of the Framework Decisions do not arise.
One of the new aspects of the Framework Decisions is that they impose in principle an obligation to accept requests for transfer.
At the time of writing, respectively 10, 14 and 16 Member States have not yet transposed the Framework Decisions more than 2 years and 1 year after the implementation date.
Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2006/783/JHA will continue to apply in relation to those Member States that are not bound by this Regulation.
Some Member States have not implemented all grounds for refusal as indicated in the Framework Decisions(HU, LU, NL, DK, LV) others have added additional grounds AT, BE, DK.
The Framework Decisions establish a new simplified and more effective system for the transfer of sentences to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation.
If a decision was adopted in the issuing State on the basis of one of those Framework Decisions, the recognition procedure should be followed accordingly in the executing State.
Since the adoption of Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2008/978/JHA, it has become clear that the existing framework for the gathering of evidence is too fragmented and complicated.
The late or incomplete implementation by several Member States is particularly regrettable as the Framework Decisions have the potential to lead to a reduction in prison sentences imposed by judges on non-residents.
Instead of framework decisions, decisions and conventions, even in the criminal law field the EU adopts the ordinary EU instruments(regulations, directives and decisions). .
There are in fact operational links between the three Framework Decisions, but also between the Framework Decisions and the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant6.
By their nature, Framework Decisions are binding upon the Member States as to the result to be achieved, but it is a matter for the national authorities to choose the form and method of implementation.
There are in fact operational links between the three Framework Decisions, but also between these Framework Decisions and the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant.
The non-implementation of the Framework Decisions by some Member States is very problematic since those Member States who have properly implemented the Framework Decisions cannot benefit from their co-operation provisions in their relations with those Member States who did not implement them in time.
The report examines the implementation of three separate EU Framework Decisions covering(1) the transfer of prisoners,(2) probation and alternative sanctions,(3) and the European Supervision Order.