6 Amendments of Baroness Sarah LUDFORD related to 2013/0255(APP)
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas crime – in particular organised crime – is increasingly taking on a cross- border dimension and the only effective response can come from the EUEU must give its response, giving added value to the joint efforts of all the Member States;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i
Paragraph 4 – point i
(i) the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should operate in the strictest compliance with the principle of the natural court, which requires that the non-discretionary criteria determining which competent court is to exert jurisdiction should be clear and known in advance. As the current formulation of Article 27 (4) grants the European Public Prosecutor’s Office excessive discretion in applying the various jurisdiction criteria, which fails to ensure foreseeability in the choice of jurisdiction, constituting a disproportionate interference with defence rights under Article 48 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a hierarchy should be created between the listed criteria in order to ensure foreseeability and to render them binding on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii
Paragraph 4 – point ii
(ii) the scope of the competence of the EPPO should be precisely determined, to enable the criminal acts that fall within that scope to be identified beforehand. The European Parliament suggests that the definitions set out in Article 13 of the Commission proposal, concerning ancillary competence, should be carefully reviewed so that such competence applies where: 1) the particular conduct simultaneously constitutes offences affecting the Union’s financial interests and other offence(s); and 2) the offence(s) affecting the Union’s financial interests is/are predominant and the other(s) is/are merely ancillary; and 3)the other offence(s) would be barred from further trying and punishment if they were not prosecuted and brought to judgment together with the offence(s) affecting the Union’s financial interests;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv
Paragraph 4 – point iv
(iv) the admissibility of evidence and its assessment are key elements in the ascertainment of guilt. The relevant rules must therefore be clear and uniform throughout the area covered by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and should fully comply with personal defence safeguards. To ensure such compliance, conditions for admissibility of evidence should be such as to respect all rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as explicitly requiring these rights to be taken into account in the assessment of evidence;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v
Paragraph 4 – point v
(v) all decisions taken by the European Public Prosecutor should be subject to legal challenge before a superior court. In this regard, decisions taken centrally by the Public Prosecutor, as described in Articles 27, 28 and 29 concerning competence, dismissal of cases or transactions, should logically be subject to appeal before the Court of Justice. Given the serious risk that Article 29 could be interpreted so as to allow arbitrary administration of justice, it should be redrafted. By seeking to re-label acts and omissions of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office as being those of a national authority in order to prevent direct actions as well as preliminary ruling procedures before the Union’s courts, Article 36 circumvents the Treaty provisions on the jurisdiction of the Union’s courts and disproportionately interferes with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and should be carefully reviewed;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point i
Paragraph 5 – point i
(i) all the activities of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should meet the highest standards with regard to the rights of defence. It should be noted that the Roadmap concerning safeguardfor strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, adopted by the Council on 30 November 2009, has not yet been completed and that the proposal merely refers to the national legal systems for all issues relating to the right to remain silent, the principle of innocence, the right to legal aid and to investigations for the defence. It should be clarified however, that after the expiry of the relevant transposition period, non-transposition or wrong transposition into national law of one of the procedural rights acts of Union law pursuant to the Roadmap shall not prevent the application of these acts in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;