4 Amendments of Sari ESSAYAH related to 2013/0255(APP)
Amendment 51 #
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 reviewdeleted;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 point iii a (new)
Paragraph 4 point iii a (new)
(iiia) conducting of investigations should be adjusted also to the systems of the Member States where prosecutors are not undertaking investigations but the competent law enforcement officials.
Amendment 74 #
(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 and especially Article 29 is problematic as it infringes with many of the very different national systems;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point i a (new)
Paragraph 6 – point i a (new)
(ia) the structure of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should be collegial, thus representatives from all Member States should have an equal say in the decisions of the Office;