Activities of Axel VOSS related to 2013/0255(APP)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (27)
Amendment 5 #
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the importance of ensuring the independence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the European Chief Prosecutor and his/her deputies, the European prosecutors and the European delegated prosecutors, including from any undue influence on the part of national political, administrative or judicial authorities, including those with which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is bound to cooperate in conducting its investigations;
Amendment 6 #
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Reaffirms its strong willingness to establish an EPPO and to reform Eurojust as foreseen by the European Commission in its proposal for a regulation on Eurojust; however is convinced that the Eurojust reform should be put on hold until the Council has adopted a general approach on EPPO; sticks to the package approach, because of the close interaction of EPPO and Eurojust;
Amendment 7 #
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b Considers that the scope of the EPPO competence should be unambiguously defined in order to avoid legal uncertainty as regards the criminal offences which falls within its remit; in this regard calls on the Council to clarify the competence of Eurojust, Europol and OLAF so that all bodies in charge of the protection of the EU’s financial interests have their respective roles clearly defines and differentiated;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
- having regard to the opinion of the Legal Service of the European Parliament and to the opinion by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,
Amendment 8 #
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Is concerned that the establishment of the EPPO could have an impact on the budget and functioning of Eurojust;
Amendment 13 #
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the need, as regards the appointment ofStresses stresses the need for an open and transparent selection procedure to appoint the European pPublic pProsecutors, for an open and transpar and his/her deputies and suggests an opent competition for candidates fulfilling the required criteria of professionalism, experience, and independence, and suggests in terms of procedure, that they may be shortlisted by the Commission and evaluated by an independent panel of experts, with the final decision on appointment to be made by the Council and approved by Parliament; stresses that Parliament and the Council should appoint the European Chief Prosecutor by common agreewith adequate professionalism, experience and skills, who may be shortlisted by the Commission and evaluated by an independent panel of experts; suggests to transmit the shortlist with the pre-selection to the European Parliament and the Council and empowers the European Parliament and the Council to decide to hold further interviews with the candidates whose names are mentioned on the shortlist; calls therefore for the full involvement of the European Parliament in the selection procedure of the European Prosecutor and his/her deputies, with the final decision on appointment to be made by the Council and approved by Parliament;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Reaffirms its strong willingness to establish an EPPO and to reform Eurojust as foreseen by the European Commission in its proposal for a regulation on Eurojust; however is convinced that the Eurojust reform should be put on hold until the Council has adopted a general approach on EPPO; sticks to the package approach, because of the close interaction of EPPO and Eurojust;
Amendment 16 #
A. whereas crime – in particular organised crime – is increasingly taking on a cross- border dimension and the onlya more effective response can comes from the EUincreased cooperation at the EU level, giving added value to the joint efforts of all the Member States;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Considers that the scope of the EPPO competence should be unambiguously defined in order to avoid legal uncertainty as regards the criminal offences which falls within its remit; in this regard calls on the Council to clarify the competence of Eurojust, Europol and OLAF so that all bodies in charge of the protection of the EU's financial interests have their respective roles clearly defines and differentiated;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas protection of the EU budget against fraud can be better achieved at EU level by reason of it scale and effects than on Member State level;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Deems it crucial to ensure within a short period of time the establishment of a single, strong,n independent EPPO that is able to investigate, prosecute and bring to courjudgement the perpetrators of criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests; and considers that any weaker solution would be a cost for the Union budget;
Amendment 21 #
Paragraph 7
7. Recommends that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office make special efforts to tackle cross-border crime against the financial interests of the EU, considering the complexity mof the issue and the high level of danger and damage that it engenders; however affirms that the competences of the EPPO should be precisely determined, to enable the criminal acts that fall within the scope to be identified beforehand and to distinguish clearly between the competences of the EPPO and national prosecutors; in this regard suggest to carefully review the definitions set out in Article 13 of the Commission's proposal, concerning ancillary competence in order to avoid dual offence or judicial loopholes; suggests to make sure that investigative tools and measures available to the EPPO should be uniform, precisely identified and compatible with all legal systems of the Member State to ensure that forum shopping can be excluded;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas respect for the rule of law must be a guiding principle for all European legislation, especially in matters relating to justice and protection of fundamental human rights, and without prejudice to the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the impneed fort ance of its involvement in the appointment procedur open and transparent selection procedure to appoint the European Prosecutor and his/her Deputies and suggests an open competition for candidates with adequate professionalism, experience and skills, who might be shortlisted by the European Commission, evaluated by a panel of experts and heard by the European Parliament; ; suggests to transmit the list with the pre-selection to the European Parliament and the Council and empowers the European Parliament and the Council to decide to hold further interviews with the candidates whose names are mentioned on the list; calls therefore for the full involvement of the European Parliament in the selection procedure of the European Prosecutor and his/her Deputies;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers the establishment of a European Public Prosecutors Office as a truly added value for the Area of Freedom Security and Justice, if preferably all Members States participate. If unanimity cannot be achieved on the proposal, enhanced cooperation might be possible. However, in this case the European Parliament calls on the Commission to present a new proposal;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Affirms that the competences of the EPPO should be precisely determined, to enable the criminal acts that fall within the scope to be identified beforehand and to distinguish clearly between the competences of the EPPO and national prosecutors; in this regard suggest to carefully review the definitions set out in Article 13 of the Commission's proposal, concerning ancillary competence in order to avoid dual offence or judicial loopholes; suggests to make sure that investigative tools and measures available to the EPPO should be uniform, precisely identified and compatible with all legal systems of the Member State to ensure that forum shopping can be excluded;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes note that the option of a collegiate structure is under scrutiny by the Member States,; instead of the hierarchical one initially proposed by the European Commission; in this regard, believes that the decisions concerning the choice of the competent jurisdiction, the dismissal of a case and th this regard, believes that this College approach should be carefully examined and taken into consideration; however is concerned that a College approach for EPPO could lead to double structures with regard to the collegiate stransaction should be taken at the central level by the Chambersucture of Eurojust; therefore competences should be unambiguously defined;
Amendment 49 #
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 and to distinguish clearly between the competences of the EPPO and national prosecutors. The European Parliament suggests that the definitions set out in Article 13 of the Commission proposal, concerning ancillary competence, should be carefully reviewed in order to avoid dual offence or judicial loopholes;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Is concerned that the establishment of the EPPO could have an impact on the budget and functioning of Eurojust;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iii
Paragraph 4 – point iii
(iii) the investigative tools and investigation measures available to the EPPO should be uniform, precisely identified and compatible with all the legal systems of the Member States to ensure that ‘forum shopping’ can be excluded;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the legislator to ensure streamlined procedures for the EPPO to obtain the authorisation ofestablish investigativeon measures in cross- border cases, in accordance with the law of the Member States where the measure in question is executed;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Council to ensure the admissibility of the evidence gathered by the EPPO throughout the Union, in accordance to Article 6 TEU; as this is crucial for the effectiveness of the prosecutions;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Calls on the legislator to ensure the EPPO to apply the European arrest warrant;
Amendment 72 #
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. It is of utmost importance to examine and define precisely, if the General Court has jurisdiction to hear legal redress, if not a change of the treaties might be considered as a necessary step in order to ensure the efficiency of the European criminal justice area in its entirety;]
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that the new Office should carry out its activities with full respect for the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as in the legal framework provided by the Union on the procedural rights of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings and on the protection of personal data; in this regard recalls that the setting up of investigations measures written in Article 26 of the European Commission's Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the EPPO is of utmost importance and should be in line with Union law;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point iii a (new)
Paragraph 6 – point iii a (new)
(iiia) a control mechanism should be established and report annually on EPPOs activities;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reminds the Council and the Commission that it is of the utmost importance that the European Parliament, co-legislator in substantive and procedural criminal matters, remains closely involved in the process of the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and that its position is duly taken into account at all stages of the procedure; to that end, intends to maintain frequent contacts with the Commission and the Council, with a view to successful collaboration; is fully aware of the complexity of the task and of the need for a reasonable time frame within which to fulfil it, and undertakes to express its views, where necessary in further interim reports, on the future developments of the EPPO;