Skip to content

Where are you from?

Choose your province and we will tell you how the deputies and senators you elected vote, one by one.

 

We remember it in this browser. If you create an account, we keep it there.

Type a law, a topic, a person or a province.

What it is

How EU countries enforce freezes and evidence seizures in criminal cases

BOE step 7 of 7 · Passed

It is a government bill. Introduced by the Government. It was introduced on 18 November 2005. Introduced by: Gobierno.

Official title: Government bill for the effectiveness in the European Union of seizure and evidence preservation orders in criminal proceedings.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 121/000061· updated 11 Nov

Automatic summary, not yet reviewed

  1. This law sets out how Spanish judicial authorities send to other European Union member states their orders freezing assets or securing evidence issued in a criminal case, and how they recognize and enforce in Spain the orders that arrive from abroad.
  2. These measures provisionally prevent assets that could be confiscated or used as evidence from being destroyed, moved, transferred or sold. They can cover any kind of asset, tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, as well as documents.
  3. In Spain, the judge or court hearing the case can issue these orders, and prosecutors leading an investigation can issue evidence-securing measures that do not limit fundamental rights. To enforce them, the investigating courts of the place where the assets are located, and in some cases prosecutors, are competent.
  4. For a list of serious crimes punishable by prison sentences of at least three years, foreign orders are enforced in Spain without checking double criminality, meaning the act does not need to be a crime under Spanish law too. For all other cases, that check is still required.
  5. Spanish authorities recognize and immediately enforce orders from other member states in the cases without double criminality, and must decide and communicate their decision within 24 hours of receiving the order. The measure cannot extend to assets or documents that were not requested.
  6. Enforcement can only be refused for a closed list of reasons, such as a missing certificate, the measure being banned in Spain, or a violation of res judicata, and it can be suspended, for example, if it would harm an ongoing investigation in Spain. The affected parties can file a reconsideration motion and an appeal, which do not suspend enforcement.

Who it affects

  • Spanish judges and courts: They must send freezing and evidence-securing orders to other member states and enforce in Spain the ones they receive, almost always immediately.
  • Prosecutors: They can issue and enforce certain evidence-securing measures and must report quarterly on the orders issued or received.
  • People under investigation or charged in a criminal case: Their assets or evidence can be frozen or secured in another EU state, though they can appeal the decisions.
  • Good-faith third parties affected: Holders of rights and legitimate interests can file reconsideration motions and appeals against enforcement decisions.

Words worth knowing

Embargo
In this law it is not just blocking assets to pay debts: it includes collecting, blocking, preserving, intervening in, seizing or placing under judicial custody objects linked to a crime.
Doble tipificación (double criminality)
The requirement that an act be a crime both in the country requesting the measure and in Spain. For certain serious crimes it is no longer required.
Cosa juzgada (res judicata)
A matter already finally decided by a court and that cannot be tried again.
Decomiso (confiscation)
The loss, in favor of the State, of assets linked to a crime.
Certificado (certificate)
An official document, with a fixed form, that accompanies the order and certifies its content so the other state can enforce it.

It summarizes the law as published in the BOE. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries

Where it stands

How far did it get?

It took 7 of 7 steps. It reached BOE, and today it is passed.

  1. Introduced18 November 2005Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
  2. Admitted22 November 2005The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
  3. Amendments25 November 2005Groups propose changes.
  4. Committee15 February 2006A committee goes through the text in detail.
  5. Plenaryno dateAll 350 deputies vote.
  6. Senate8 March 2006The Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
  7. BOE18 May 2006It is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 9 official steps on a timeline
Nov 2005Dec 2005Jan 2006Feb 2006Mar 2006Apr 200611. 18 November 2005: Presentación22. 22 November 2005: Comisión de Justicia Publicación desde 22/11/2005 hasta 25/11/200533. 22 November 2005: Calificación44. 25 November 2005: Comisión de Justicia Enmiendas desde 25/11/2005 hasta 15/02/200655. 15 February 2006: Comisión de Justicia Informe desde 15/02/2006 hasta 28/02/200666. 28 February 2006: Comisión de Justicia Aprobación con competencia legislativa plena desde 28/02/2006 hasta 08/03/200677. 8 March 2006: Senado desde 08/03/2006 hasta 09/05/200688. 9 May 2006: Pleno Enmiendas o veto del Senado desde 09/05/2006 hasta 18/05/200699. 18 May 2006: Concluido - (Aprobado con modificaciones) desde 18/05/2006 hasta 20/06/2006

Was there a plenary vote?

We have no plenary vote linked to this law in the Congreso’s data.

What happens next

What happens now?

It is law, or will be once published in the BOE. It comes into force on the date its own text sets.

The same initiative in the other chamber:

Published in the BOE: Act 18/2006, of June 5, for the effectiveness in the European Union of seizure and evidence preservation orders in criminal proceedings.

Sources

Where does all this come from?

  • The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
  • Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
  • We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.