Activities of Evelyn REGNER related to 2013/0255(APP)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (12)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital -1 (new)
Recital -1 (new)
-1. Whereas the EPPO will be a supranational body within the area of freedom, security and justice and should, therefore, comply with the objectives of that area, namely ‘respect for fundamental rights and the different legal system and traditions of the Member States’ in accordance with Article 67 TFEU,
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital -1 a (new)
Recital -1 a (new)
-1a. Whereas in the famous Greek maize case, the Court of Justice ruled that the Member States are under the obligation to protect the European Communities’ interests by means equivalent to those by which they protect their own respective interests1a; whereas the establishment of the EPPO can be seen as the logical development of that fundamental judgment, ____________ 1a Case 68/88 Commission v Greece (1989) ECR 2965, paras. 23-25.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital -1 b (new)
Recital -1 b (new)
-1b. Whereas the principle of mutual recognition should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and be seen as the motor of European criminal law integration,
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 – point i – point b
Recommendation 1 – point i – point b
b) such offences should be considered as ‘inextricably linked’ with the offences referred to in Article 12 whenever they are instrumental in committing them or perpetrated in order to ensure their impunity;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 4 a (new)
Recommendation 4 a (new)
4a. calls on the Commission to develop a coherent legislative framework for the EPPO and Eurojust that reflects the different functions of the two bodies as enshrined in Articles 85 and 86 TFEU respectively;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 4 b (new)
Recommendation 4 b (new)
4b. urges the Commission, in case of Member States opting out or enhanced cooperation being established in accordance with Article 86(1) TFEU, to make appropriate proposals in order to regulate judicial cooperation between participating and non-participating Member States, with special regard to cases where cross-border offences are committed, or offenders are based, in non-participating Member States;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 4 c (new)
Recommendation 4 c (new)
4c. deplores that, based on the current experiences of mutual recognition, it is hard to expect that Member States will be willing to recognize and admit evidence which was gathered in other Member States on the basis of substantially different standards; points out that the divergence between the national laws of the Member States is particularly striking in relation to special investigation techniques, as it is often the case that, whereas a certain technique is strictly regulated in some Member States, it is not regulated at all in others;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 4 d (new)
Recommendation 4 d (new)
4d. takes the view that the EPPO could join the College of Eurojust as an extra member whenever matters related to the protection of financial interest of the Union are discussed;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 4 e (new)
Recommendation 4 e (new)
4e. points out the criteria for selecting candidates to hold the position of European Delegated Prosecutor, conditions for and periods of assignment, as well as status and matters relating to pay should be the same in all Member States;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 4 f (new)
Recommendation 4 f (new)
4f. considers that the area of applicability of national procedural law should be carefully examined and, possibly, restricted, for variable geometry as to the powers of the EPPO would undermine its efficiency and encourage forum shopping, as well as affecting the rights of the suspect or accused person;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 4 g (new)
Recommendation 4 g (new)
4g. considers that, should the Court of Justice become an instance for judicial review in cases dealt with by the EPPO, significant additional resources in terms of judges, staff, infrastructure and training will have to be put in place in advance of the establishment the EPPO;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 4 h (new)
Recommendation 4 h (new)
4h. welcomes the training courses for lawyers jointly organised by the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) and the Academy of European Law (ERA) and encourages tailored courses in order to enhance the quality of defence in criminal proceedings brought by the EPPO;