Section 745. 6 of the Criminal Code gives the jury broad discretionary power to consider any matter concerning the offender’s situation, and the Supreme Court has provided guidelines for the exercise of this discretionary power, namely that the jury must consider only the applicant’s case and must not try the cases of other inmates who may have committed offences after being released on parole.

Firstly, it is now possible for Parliament to take the Ombudsman’s cases to court if the institutions do not respect the Ombudsman.

In particular it frequently availed itself of the possibility of deciding a case without an Advocate General’s Opinion where the case raises no new point of law.

My dilemma is I don't want to see Parliament now becoming a judge in the procedure and House affairs committee, and bringing somebody back, and taking his testimony there, and doing it here.

232. 232 Notes that it is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that EU legislation is implemented by the Member States; notes that the average infringement case takes three years before a final judgment is handed down and that there have only ever been two cases where a Member State was fined for not implementing EU legislation; is concerned that enlargement will increase the workload of the Commission with regard to its monitoring of the implementation of legislation and will further slow the infringement procedure; is concerned that no Commissioner is responsible for such an important issue; urges the incoming Commission Presi ...[+++]dent to include special responsibility for infringements in the portfolio of one of the new Commissioners;

These changes include the creation of the Grand Chamber, the election of the Presidents of the chambers of five Judges for a period of three years and the possibility of determining cases without an Opinion from the Advocate General where no new point of law is raised.