It's coming - EU cross-border exchange of information

[agtlaw]

This issue was incredibly badly reported quite recently. Cross-border exchange of information is pending.

A most unwelcome draft directive:

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/index.cfm?...

[CoffeeTreat]

I look forward to the referendum if the Torys stay in power.

[joebongo]

What's so bad about this?

[agtlaw]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your UK licence won't be endorsed as the Directive refers only to financial penalties. You could be prosecuted in another member state and banned from driving there (and any other country with which it has a reciprocal agreement). Alternatively, you could get points or demerit points in another member state - potentially leading to a ban in that member state if you commit repeat offences. At the moment, we don't recognise foreign bans but I'd expect that to change at some point,

The Directive comes into force on 7th August 2014. However, each member state has until 6th May 2015 to "bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive".

The Directive provides for the registered keeper getting the fine - although there is provision to nominate another driver. However, the expense of defending a case in Europe will likely be far in excess of the financial penalty proposed. Most people will not fight foreign cases because of the expense, time and effort it takes to attend court in Europe - and then there's the language barrier and a foreign legal system. A sad state of affairs.

[XCP]

If it stops foreigners taking the piss in this country, it's a good thing. If it stops Brits taking the piss abroad of course, it's a bad thing.

[Riley Blue]

I don't see this as a bad thing at all. It's very arrogant of us to think that we should be able to commit traffic offences abroad without being caught and punished.

[Dwight VanDriver]

agtlaw

Does not our Parliament have to pass a SI to bring this EEC Directive within the Law of UK. Haven't seen one yet. The current mood of Cameron may result in this never happening?

dvd

[llewop]

Dwight VanDriver said:

agtlaw

Does not our Parliament have to pass a SI to bring this EEC Directive within the Law of UK. Haven't seen one yet. The current mood of Cameron may result in this never happening?

dvd

since the linked document is only a proposal for a directive, there wouldn't be a SI... yet. Once the directive is finalised it will include a timescale for each member state to implement it, which may be a few years.

[agtlaw]

Dwight VanDriver said:

agtlaw

Does not our Parliament have to pass a SI to bring this EEC Directive within the Law of UK. Haven't seen one yet. The current mood of Cameron may result in this never happening?

dvd

The process is called transposition. There may be a consultation exercise. Guidance about the new legislation is supposed to be published 12 weeks in advance of its implementation. There will be a statutory instrument or instruments, or primary legislation - the effective date must be before the deadline set in the Directive - 6th May 2015. N.b. The deadline for the general election is 7th May 2015. If it's not implemented then the UK can be fined by the ECJ.

Edited by agtlaw on Saturday 19th July 08:24

[agtlaw]

llewop said:

since the linked document is only a proposal for a directive, there wouldn't be a SI... yet. Once the directive is finalised it will include a timescale for each member state to implement it, which may be a few years.

6th May 2015.

[llewop]

agtlaw said:

6th May 2015.

okay - I didn't read all 18 pages the first time!

but given it is only a draft directive: that date could change - I know of directives that had drifted and been discussed/reviewed/revised/re-issued for years before being finalised.

[agtlaw]

llewop said:

okay - I didn't read all 18 pages the first time!

but given it is only a draft directive: that date could change - I know of directives that had drifted and been discussed/reviewed/revised/re-issued for years before being finalised.

Not this one. The directive arises out of an ECJ decision in May.

"in its judgement of 6 May 2014, case C-43/12 Commission v. European Parliament and Council, the Court annulled Directive 2011/82/EU, but maintained its effects until the entry into force of a new Directive on the basis of the transport article of the Treaty within a reasonable period of time, which may not exceed twelve months from the date of delivery of the judgement."

[RedSwede]

This is most definitely a bad thing, and not just because I like going abroad and doing what the hell I like.

Although not specifically part of this directive, if, as AGT says, bans and other penalties do get "carried home", then we are governed by things we have no democratic control over.

I may have a quick half with lunch in a zero-tolerance country. Fair enough, ignorance is no defence, and I get a ban in that country. However, such a small ammount would not be an offence here. Furthermore, if a zero-tolerance approach to alcohol were proposed, the country (and me) has some scope to change it through democracy. That is not the case for another country.

Of course there are cross border trials and justice now, but not without a court and propper legal consideration. To have cross border punishment of offences that often never go to court and which are potentially due to breaking detail rules that it may be understandable to have overlooked, seems a gross infringement.

[Jon1967x]

XCP said:

If it stops foreigners taking the piss in this country, it's a good thing. If it stops Brits taking the piss abroad of course, it's a bad thing.

Based on the general consensus (of Daily Mail readers admittedly) it will mean we get prosecuted if we do something abroad but foreign countries will give two fingers to applying it to their citizens if they commit crime here.

[paulrussell]

agtlaw said:

At the moment, we don't recognise foreign bans but I'd expect that to change at some point

The directive doesn't mention that at all, so stop the scare mongering.

[Who me ?]

XCP said:

If it stops foreigners taking the piss in this country, it's a good thing. If it stops Brits taking the piss abroad of course, it's a bad thing.

Problem from past performance, is that the UK will comply, but will the likes of France do likewise ,and if tey did ,how long before Paris is brought to a standstill with protests .Veal and apples ring a bell ?

[Stoofa]

Personally I feel that a country should only be able to ban you in that country. So arse about in France and really they have every right to ban you from their roads - as long as you are treated the same way a French resident would be.
I'm also quite happy for fines to be cross-border. Again why people feel they can go to other countries and do as they please is beyond me.
However points should not carry across borders.

[trashbat]

RedSwede said:

This is most definitely a bad thing, and not just because I like going abroad and doing what the hell I like.

Although not specifically part of this directive, if, as AGT says, bans and other penalties do get "carried home", then we are governed by things we have no democratic control over.

This has always been the case the moment you set foot in a foreign country. You presumably have the choice of whether you go there or not.

I know that actually you're complaining about the hangover continuing once you arrive home, but the complaint about democracy you're trying to back it with is poor.

[trashbat]

Stoofa said:

Personally I feel that a country should only be able to ban you in that country. So arse about in France and really they have every right to ban you from their roads - as long as you are treated the same way a French resident would be.
I'm also quite happy for fines to be cross-border. Again why people feel they can go to other countries and do as they please is beyond me.
However points should not carry across borders.

You're happy with fines and I'm going to guess that you're happy with the more serious end of the scale, like international arrest warrants, although apologies if you do object to those. Where then do you draw the lines that mark out the 'only a crime while you're there' area of lawbreaking, and how do you justify it?

[0000]

More holidays outside Europe then. Works for me.