(1)

The purpose of this Directive is to ensure the effectiveness of the right of access to a lawyer as provided for under Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) by making available the assistance of a lawyer funded by the Member States for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons who are the subject of European arrest warrant proceedings pursuant to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (4) (requested persons).

(2)

By establishing common minimum rules concerning the right to legal aid for suspects, accused persons and requested persons, this Directive aims to strengthen the trust of Member States in each other's criminal justice systems and thus to improve mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters.

(3)

The third paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), Article 6(3)(c) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) enshrine the right to legal aid in criminal proceedings in accordance with the conditions laid down in those provisions. The Charter has the same legal value as the Treaties, and the Member States are parties to the ECHR and the ICCPR. However, experience has shown that this in itself does not always provide a sufficient degree of trust in the criminal justice systems of other Member States.

(4)

On 30 November 2009, the Council adopted a Resolution on a Roadmap for strengthening the procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings (5) (‘the Roadmap’). Taking a step-by-step approach, the Roadmap calls for the adoption of measures regarding the right to translation and interpretation (measure A), the right to information on rights and information about the charges (measure B), the right to legal advice and legal aid (measure C), the right to communicate with relatives, employers and consular authorities (measure D), and special safeguards for suspects or accused persons who are vulnerable (measure E).

(5)

On 11 December 2009, the European Council welcomed the Roadmap and made it part of the Stockholm programme — ‘An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens’ (6) (point 2.4). The European Council underlined the non-exhaustive character of the Roadmap by inviting the Commission to examine further elements of minimum procedural rights for suspects and accused persons, and to assess whether other issues, for instance the presumption of innocence, need to be addressed, in order to promote better cooperation in that area.

(6)

Five measures on procedural rights in criminal proceedings have been adopted pursuant to the Roadmap to date, namely Directives 2010/64/EU (7), 2012/13/EU (8), 2013/48/EU, (EU) 2016/343 (9) and (EU) 2016/800 (10) of the European Parliament and of the Council.

(7)

This Directive relates to the second part of measure C of the Roadmap, regarding legal aid.

(8)

Legal aid should cover the costs of the defence of suspects, accused persons and requested persons. When granting legal aid, the competent authorities of the Member States should be able to require that suspects, accused persons or requested persons bear part of those costs themselves, depending on their financial resources.

(9)

Without prejudice to Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2016/800, this Directive should not apply where suspects or accused persons, or requested persons, have waived their right of access to a lawyer in accordance with, respectively, Article 9 or Article 10(3) of Directive 2013/48/EU, and have not revoked such waiver, or where Member States have applied the temporary derogations in accordance with Article 3(5) or (6) of Directive 2013/48/EU, for the time of such derogation.

(10)

Where a person who was initially not a suspect or an accused person, such as a witness, becomes a suspect or an accused person, that person should have the right not to incriminate him or herself and the right to remain silent, in accordance with Union law and the ECHR, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice) and by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This Directive therefore makes express reference to the practical situation where such a person becomes a suspect or an accused person during questioning by the police or by another law enforcement authority in the context of criminal proceedings. Where, in the course of such questioning, a person other than a suspect or an accused person becomes a suspect or an accused person, questioning should be suspended immediately. However, it should be possible to continue questioning where the person concerned has been made aware that he or she has become a suspect or an accused person and that person is able to fully exercise the rights provided for in this Directive.

(11)

In some Member States an authority other than a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters has competence for imposing sanctions other than deprivation of liberty in relation to relatively minor offences. That may be the case, for example, in relation to traffic offences which are committed on a large scale and which might be established following a traffic control. In such situations, it would be unreasonable to require that the competent authorities ensure all the rights under this Directive. Where the law of a Member State provides for the imposition of a sanction regarding minor offences by such an authority and there is either a right of appeal or the possibility for the case to be otherwise referred to a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, this Directive should therefore apply only to the proceedings before that court following such an appeal or referral.

(12)

In some Member States certain minor offences, in particular minor traffic offences, minor offences in relation to general municipal regulations and minor public order offences, are considered to be criminal offences. In such situations, it would be unreasonable to require that the competent authorities ensure all the rights under this Directive. Where the law of a Member State provides in respect of minor offences that deprivation of liberty cannot be imposed as a sanction, this Directive should therefore apply only to the proceedings before a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters.

(13)

The application of this Directive to minor offences is subject to the conditions set out in this Directive. Member States should be able to apply a means test, a merits test, or both in order to determine whether legal aid is to be granted. Provided that this complies with the right to a fair trial, the merits test may be deemed not to have been met in respect of certain minor offences.

(14)

The scope of application of this Directive in respect of certain minor offences should not affect the obligations of Member States under the ECHR to ensure the right to a fair trial, including obtaining the assistance of a lawyer.

(15)

Provided that this complies with the right to a fair trial, the following situations do not constitute a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of this Directive: identifying the suspect or accused person; determining whether an investigation should be started; verifying the possession of weapons or other similar safety issues; carrying out investigative or evidence-gathering acts other than those specifically referred to in this Directive, such as body checks, physical examinations, blood, alcohol or similar tests, or the taking of photographs or fingerprints; bringing the suspect or accused person to appear before a competent authority, in accordance with national law.

(16)

This Directive lays down minimum rules. Member States should be able to grant legal aid in situations which are not covered by this Directive, for example when investigative or evidence-gathering acts other than those specifically referred to in this Directive are carried out.

(17)

In accordance with Article 6(3)(c) ECHR, suspects and accused persons who lack sufficient resources to pay for the assistance of a lawyer are to have the right to legal aid when the interests of justice so require. This minimum rule allows Member States to apply a means test, a merits test, or both. The application of those tests should not limit or derogate from the rights and procedural safeguards that are ensured under the Charter and the ECHR, as interpreted by the Court of Justice and by the ECtHR.

(18)

Member States should lay down practical arrangements regarding the provision of legal aid. Such arrangements could determine that legal aid is granted following a request by a suspect, an accused person or a requested person. Given in particular the needs of vulnerable persons, such a request should not, however, be a substantive condition for granting legal aid.

(19)

The competent authorities should grant legal aid without undue delay and at the latest before questioning of the person concerned by the police, by another law enforcement authority or by a judicial authority, or before the specific investigative or evidence-gathering acts referred to in this Directive are carried out. If the competent authorities are not able to do so, they should at least grant emergency or provisional legal aid before such questioning or before such investigative or evidence-gathering acts are carried out.

(20)

Given the specificity of European arrest warrant proceedings, the interpretation of the provisions of this Directive relating only to requested persons should take into account this specificity and should not in any way prejudice the interpretation of the other provisions of this Directive.

(21)

Requested persons should have the right to legal aid in the executing Member State. In addition, requested persons who are the subject of European arrest warrant proceedings for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution and who exercise their right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing Member State in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU should have the right to legal aid in that Member State for the purpose of such proceedings in the executing Member State, in so far as legal aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice, as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter. This would be the case where the lawyer in the executing Member State cannot fulfil his or her tasks as regards the execution of a European arrest warrant effectively and efficiently without the assistance of a lawyer in the issuing Member State. Any decision regarding the granting of legal aid in the issuing Member State should be taken by an authority that is competent for taking such decisions in that Member State, on the basis of criteria that are established by that Member State when implementing this Directive.

(22)

To ensure effective access to a lawyer by requested persons, Member States should ensure that requested persons have a right to legal aid until they are surrendered, or until the decision not to surrender them becomes final.

(23)

When implementing this Directive, Member States should ensure respect for the fundamental right to legal aid as provided for by the Charter and by the ECHR. In doing so, they should respect the United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems.

(24)

Without prejudice to provisions of national law concerning the mandatory presence of a lawyer, a competent authority should decide, without undue delay, whether or not to grant legal aid. The competent authority should be an independent authority that is competent to take decisions regarding the granting of legal aid, or a court, including a judge sitting alone. In urgent situations the temporary involvement of the police and the prosecution should, however, also be possible in so far as this is necessary for granting legal aid in a timely manner.

(25)

Where legal aid has been granted to a suspect, an accused person or a requested person, one way of ensuring its effectiveness and quality is to facilitate continuity in his or her legal representation. In that respect, Member States should facilitate continuity of legal representation throughout the criminal proceedings, as well as — where relevant — in European arrest warrant proceedings.

(26)

Adequate training should be provided to staff involved in the decision-making on legal aid in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings. Without prejudice to the judicial independence and differences in the organisation of the judiciary across the Member States, Member States should request that those responsible for the training of judges provide such training to courts and judges that take decisions regarding the granting of legal aid.

(27)

The principle of effectiveness of Union law requires that Member States put in place adequate and effective remedies in the event of a breach of a right conferred upon individuals by Union law. An effective remedy should be available where the right to legal aid is undermined or the provision of legal aid is delayed or refused in full or in part.

(28)

In order to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of this Directive, there is a need for collection of relevant data, from available data, with regard to the implementation of the rights set out in this Directive. Such data include, where possible, the number of requests for legal aid in criminal proceedings, as well as in European arrest warrant proceedings where the Member State concerned acts as an issuing or executing Member State, the number of cases where legal aid was granted, and the number of cases where a request for legal aid was refused. Data on the costs of providing legal aid to suspects or accused persons and to requested persons should also be collected in so far as possible.

(29)

This Directive should apply to suspects, accused persons and requested persons regardless of their legal status, citizenship or nationality. Member States should respect and guarantee the rights set out in this Directive, without any discrimination based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality, ethnic or social origin, property, disability or birth. This Directive upholds the fundamental rights and principles recognised by the Charter and by the ECHR, including the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to liberty and security, respect for private and family life, the right to the integrity of the person, the rights of the child, the integration of persons with disabilities, the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and the rights of the defence. This Directive should be implemented in accordance with those rights and principles.

(30)

This Directive lays down minimum rules. Member States should be able to extend the rights laid down in this Directive in order to provide a higher level of protection. Such higher level of protection should not constitute an obstacle to the mutual recognition of judicial decisions that those minimum rules are designed to facilitate. The level of protection provided for by Member States should never fall below the standards provided by the Charter or by the ECHR, as interpreted by the Court of Justice and by the ECtHR.

(31)

Since the objective of this Directive, namely setting common minimum rules concerning the right to legal aid for suspects, accused persons and requested persons, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(32)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.

(33)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive, and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Sweden's application to register the name ‘Hånnlamb’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Hånnlamb’ should therefore be entered in the register,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission examined Slovenia's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Štajersko prekmursko bučno olje’, registered under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 901/2012 (2).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France's application to register the name ‘Poularde du Périgord’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Poularde du Périgord’ should therefore be entered in the register,

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission examined Poland's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Karp zatorski’, registered under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2011 (2).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

(1)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)

The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

(1)

Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) provides that in order to prevent support being granted for illegal crops, areas used for the production of hemp may only be eligible if the varieties used have a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content not exceeding 0,2 %.

(2)

Article 45(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 (3) lays down that, if for the second year the average of all the samples of a given hemp variety exceeds the THC content as laid down in Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the Member State is to request authorisation to prohibit the marketing of such variety in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2002/53/EC.

(3)

On 28 April 2015, the Commission received a request from the United Kingdom for the authorisation to prohibit the marketing of the hemp variety Finola, as its THC content exceeded the authorised content of 0,2 % for the second year in a row.

(4)

Following that request, the Commission adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/17 (4) and authorised the United Kingdom to prohibit on its territory the marketing of that hemp variety.

(5)

On 15 March 2016, the United Kingdom officially informed the Commission that, following further testing of samples of the hemp variety Finola, it has been discovered that the THC content for 2014 did not exceed the threshold of 0,2 % as laid down in Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.

(6)

In this regard, the United Kingdom has requested the repeal of Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/17.

(7)

That Implementing Decision should therefore be repealed.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

The application submitted by the supplier a2solar Advanced and Automotive Solar Systems GmbH (‘the applicant’) on 4 February 2016 for the approval of the battery charging photovoltaic roof as an eco-innovation has been assessed in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 and the Technical Guidelines for the preparation of applications for the approval of innovative technologies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 (3).

(2)

The information provided in the application demonstrates that the conditions and the criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and in Articles 2 and 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 have been met. As a consequence, the battery charging photovoltaic roof proposed by the applicant should be approved as an innovative technology.

(3)

By Implementing Decisions 2014/806/EU (4) and (EU) 2015/279 (5) the Commission has approved two applications concerning battery charging photovoltaic roofs. Based on the experience gained from the assessment of those applications as well as the current application, it has been satisfactorily and conclusively demonstrated that a battery charging photovoltaic roof meets the eligibility criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 and provides a reduction in CO2 emissions of at least 1 g CO2/km compared to a baseline vehicle. It is therefore appropriate to generally acknowledge and, in accordance with Article 12(4) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, attest the capacity of this innovative technology to reduce CO2 emissions and provide a generic testing methodology for the certification of the CO2 savings.

(4)

It is therefore appropriate to provide manufacturers with the possibility to certify the CO2 savings from battery charging photovoltaic roofs that meet those conditions. In order to ensure that only photovoltaic roofs that are compliant with those conditions are proposed for certification, the manufacturer should provide a verification report from an independent and certified body confirming the compliance of the component with the conditions specified in this Decision together with the application for certification submitted to the type approval authority.

(5)

If the type approval authority finds that the battery charging photovoltaic roof does not satisfy the conditions for certification, the application for certification of the savings should be rejected.

(6)

It is appropriate to approve the testing methodology for determining the CO2 savings from battery charging photovoltaic roofs.

(7)

In order to determine the CO2 savings from a battery charging photovoltaic roof it is necessary to define the baseline vehicle against which the efficiency of the vehicle equipped with the innovative technology should be compared as provided for in Articles 5 and 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. The Commission finds that the baseline vehicle should be a variant that in all aspects is identical to the eco-innovation vehicle with the exception of the photovoltaic roof and, where applicable, without the additional battery and other appliances needed specifically for the conversion of the solar energy into electricity and its storage.

(8)

In accordance with Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 it is to be demonstrated that the battery-charging photovoltaic roof is intrinsic to the efficient operation of the vehicle. This means that the energy generated by the photovoltaic roof should not for example be solely devoted to a comfort-enhancing appliance.

(9)

In order to facilitate a wider deployment of battery-charging photovoltaic roofs in new vehicles, a manufacturer should also have the possibility to apply for the certification of the CO2 savings from several photovoltaic roof systems by a single certification application. It is however appropriate to ensure that where this possibility is used a mechanism is applied that incentivises the deployment of only those photovoltaic roofs systems that offer the highest efficiency.

(10)

For the purposes of determining the general eco-innovation code to be used in the relevant type approval documents in accordance with Annexes I, VIII and IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), the individual code to be used for the innovative technology should be specified,