Activities of Francesco Enrico SPERONI related to 2013/0255(APP)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (7)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 – point i
Recommendation 1 – point i
(i) the criteria governing the ancillary competence of the EPPO under Article 13 of the proposal should be clearly defined beforehand. In particular, a) the offences referred to in Article 13 should only be those provided for in legislative acts of the Union; b) such offences should be considered as ‘inextricably linked’ with the offences referred to in Article 12 whenever they are instrumental in committing them; c) the condition that the offences referred to in Article 12 are preponderant should also include a qualitative – and not only a quantitative – assessment; d) the condition that the offences referred to in Article 13 are based on identical facts should be deleted, so that the ancillary competence would cover both cases where the same offender commits several separate criminal acts and cases where one and the same act is an offence against several different provisionsnotwithstanding the conclusions put forward in the Commission communication of 17 November 2013 (COM(2013)0851), the establishment of the EPPO does not appear to be in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as set out in Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union, or with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5(4) thereof;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 – point ii
Recommendation 1 – point ii
(ii) relations of the EPPO with Eurojust, Europol and OLAF should be regulated to the greatest extent possible in the regulation establishing the EPPO. The agreements referthe Commission proposal does not allow for the possibility referred to in Article 5(3) of acting at regional or local level by taking alternative measures (including, to give an example mentioned by the British House of Commons, preventive measureds to in Articles 57 and 58 of the proposal should, therefore, only relate to merely practical arrangementsbe implemented at the time when an application is made for EU funding) and/or strengthening judicial cooperation among Member States and the coordination and investigation machinery existing at European level (Eurojust, Europol, and OLAF);
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 – point iii
Recommendation 1 – point iii
(iii) on no account should the EPPO exercise its competence with regard to offences committed before it becomes fully operative. Article 71 of the proposal should be amended accordinglyin addition, the Commission is not confining itself to what is necessary to achieve its aim of exercising greater oversight, but is overriding the prerogatives of the Member States and interfering in a matter within their competence, criminal law;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 – point iv (new)
Recommendation 1 – point iv (new)
(iv) the EPPO appears to have been granted unduly sweeping powers: the powers in question should continue to be exercised by national authorities;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 2
Recommendation 2
2. welcomes the fact that, under the regime applicable to non-contractual liability of the EPPO, the Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in disputes over compensation for damage in similar terms to those set out in Article 268 TFEU; however, considers it problematic that two different courts – at EU and national level respectively – shall hear actions for non- contractual liability of the EPPO and actions for annulment of its procedural measures, includiinstead of setting up new bodies, existing bodies should be streng those from which a right to compensation for damage may arise, and recommends to the Council that Articles 36 and 69 of the proposal be amended accordinglyened through exchange of best practice;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 3
Recommendation 3
3. deplores that, notwithstanding Article 86(1) TFEU clearly lays down that the Council may establish an EPPO ‘from Eurojust’, the Commission envisages a major transfer of human resources from OLAF to the EPPO, instead of taking advantage of the expertise and the added value of Eurojust’s staff membersamong the national parliaments, 14 chambers have delivered an unfavourable opinion on the proposal, and their views should not be ignored;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recommendation 4
Recommendation 4
4. considers that appropriate training in EU criminal law for European Delegated Prosecutors and their staff should be provided in a uniform, effective waythe Committee on Legal Affairs therefore calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs not to approve the Commission proposal;