2013/0255(APP) | [ParlTrack]

Recital B

B. whereas the Member States have the primary responsibility for implementing some 80 % of the Union budget, as well as for the collection of own resources~~, inter alia in the form of VAT and customs duties~~ as established in Council Decision 2007/436 EC, Euratom, shortly to be replaced by a Council Decision on amended Commission proposal COM(2011) 739 final;

Amendment 10 #

Paragraph 4

4. ~~Underlines the importance of establishing~~Considers it essential that the best possible synergies among the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, OLAF, Eurojust and the relevant authorities in the Member States be established, and stresses the need for permanent close cooperation among them;

Amendment 11 #

Paragraph 4a (new)

4 a. Underlines the importance of legality checks of all measures and actions carried out by the European Public Prosecutor's Office; is convinced that only the European Court of Justice can perform those legality checks; is at the same time fully aware of more than 2000 pending cases in this institution requiring thus efficiency gains in the Court to cope with new and pending assignments;

Amendment 12 #

Paragraph 4b (new)

4 b. Notes with concern the proposed structure of the EPPO which may give rise to overlapping and competing structures, multiplication and diffusion of tasks as well as problems with specific accountability, which could possibly undermine its legal credibility;

Amendment 13 #

Paragraph 4c (new)

4 c. Requests therefore that the lead committee consider delaying its reading of the proposal until after the European elections with a view to ensuring that the proposal adequately reflects not only the principle of subsidiarity but also the legal suitability of the proposed legal framework;

Amendment 14 #

Paragraph 4d (new)

4 d. Considers that, in light of the number of national parliaments opposing this measure, the Commission should withdraw its proposal until the new European Parliament considers what action it might take on the EPPO;

Amendment 2 #

Recital D (new)

D. whereas fourteen chambers of national Parliaments from eleven Member States have sent reasoned opinions concerning the compliance of the proposal with the principle of subsidiarity, as laid down in Article 5(3) TEU, to the Commission, triggering the subsidiarity mechanism as established in Article 7(2) of Protocol 2 TFEU;

Amendment 3 #

Recital E (new)

E. whereas following receipt of these reasoned opinions the Commission issued a review of its proposal which concluded that its proposal complied with Article 5(3) TEU and that a withdrawal or an amendment of the proposal was not required, deciding therefore to maintain its proposal as originally drafted;

Amendment 4 #

Paragraph 1

1. ~~Supports~~Takes note of the idea of basing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on existing structures, a solution expected by the European Commission to entail no substantial new costs for the Union or the Member States, as its administrative services ~~would~~shall be handled by Eurojust and its human resources ~~would~~shall come from existing entities such as OLAF;

Amendment 5 #

Paragraph 2

2. Stresses, however, that cost-efficiency concerns must not jeopardise the ability of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Eurojust or OLAF to perform the tasks conferred on them by the legislator, including ensuring that there are adequate resources for OLAF to perform its remaining important anti-fraud work in areas which do not fall under the competence of the European Public PDoubts the cost-efficiency argument of the proposal as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office needs to set up specialist departments, one for each Member State, as they have to have profound knowledge of the national legal framework in order to carry out effective investigations and prosecutorions;

Amendment 6 #

Paragraph 2a (new)

2 a. Regrets that the proposal does not contain an overview on human resources for OLAF to perform its remaining important anti-fraud work in those areas which shall not fall under the competence of the European Public Prosecutor;

Amendment 7 #

Paragraph 2b (new)

2 b. Is further concerned that some Member States will not support and take part in this European approach; warns that any opt-out by Member States will create double-structures in consequence and subsequently require additional resources;

Amendment 8 #

Paragraph 2c (new)

2 c. Is worried that the proposal is based upon the assumption that the administrative services provided by Eurojust shall have no financial or staff impact on this decentralised agency; considers, therefore, the financial statement as misleading; emphasises in this context its request that the Commission presents an updated financial statement taking into account potential modifications by the legislator before the conclusion of the legislative process;

Amendment 9 #

Paragraph 3

3. ~~Is of the opinion that~~Has no clear indication if the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, as a newly set up body, is~~hould not be~~ subject to the staff reductions planned for all Union institutions and bodies; would not support such an approach;

source: PE-526.166

2014/01/27 JURI 28 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
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 10 #

Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 – point iii

(iii) on no account ~~should~~must the EPPO exercise its competence with regard to offences committed before it becomes fully operative. Article 71 of the proposal should be amended accordingly;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
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 12 #

Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 – point iv (new)

(iv) to make for greater certainty as to the law, the competent court should be determined beforehand, in keeping with the principle of the ‘natural adjudicator’. Article 27 of the proposal should be amended accordingly;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 – point v (new)

(v) the European Public Prosecutor should be appointed for a term of four years, renewable once only. Furthermore, Deputies of the European Public Prosecutor should be appointed for a term of three years, renewable once only. Article 8 and Article 71(2) of the proposal should be amended accordingly;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 – point vi (new)

(vi) the means of investigation should be uniform, in order to avert forum shopping, and they should be compatible with the legal systems of the Member States;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
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 th~~ose 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 accordingly~~ened through exchange of best practice;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
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, including 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 accordingly;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
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 18 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE

Draft opinion
Recommendation 3

3. ~~deplores that, notwithstand~~recommends that, in accordance with the provisions laid down ing Article 86(1) TFEU ~~clearly lays down that~~, whereby the Council may establish an EPPO ‘from Eurojust’, the Commission envisage~~s a major~~ merely a transfer of ~~human~~financial resources from OLAF to the EPPO~~, instead of~~ and that EPPO tak~~ing~~e advantage of the expertise and the added value of Eurojust’s staff members;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Recommendation 3 a (new)

3a. recalls, however, that the limitation that national courts are only allowed to refer questions concerning the interpretation of law to the European Court of Justice in relation with the procedural measures of the European Prosecutor’s Office – which shall be considered as national authority for the purpose of judicial review – is in breach with the principle of equality of arms, and recommends therefore that Article 36(2) be amended accordingly;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
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 20 #

Draft opinion
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 way~~the Committee on Legal Affairs therefore calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs not to approve the Commission proposal;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
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 4 #

Draft opinion
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 5 #

Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 –point i – point a

a) the offences referred to in Article 13 should only be those provided for in legislative acts of the Union; Given that, for operating purposes, the EPPO will be equated with a national body, its action should not be confined solely to offences provided for in EU legislation, but also extend to offences defined in national laws.deleted Or. it Reason

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
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 7 #

József SZÁJER

Draft opinion
Recommendation 1 – point i – point d

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 provisions;eleted

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
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 refer~~the 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 arrangements~~be 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

(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 accordingly~~in 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;

source: PE-527.985

2014/02/19 LIBE 129 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)

– having regard to other instruments in the area of criminal justice which have been adopted in co-decision by the European Parliament together with the Council, such as Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest, the Directive regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters etc.,

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)

– having regard to the 14 reasoned opinions expressed by the Member States’ national parliaments,

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii e (new)

(iiie) when personal data are transferred to third countries or international organisations, according to Article 61 of the proposal, the concerned individuals should be informed and should have access to remedies like the possibility to bring an action before the courts or the authority competent under the law of any Member State to access, correct, delete or obtain information or to obtain compensation in connection with an investigation or any other procedure under this Regulation relating to him;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – introductory part

6. Calls on the Council to take into account the following recommendations, to ensure that the structure of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is versatile, streamlined and efficient and ~~is able to achieve maximum results;~~respects the principle of subsidiarity:

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point i

(i) in order to ensure a successful outcome for investigations and their coordination, ~~those who are required to conduct them should~~investigations should continue to be carried out by the competent authorities of the Member States because they have in-depth knowledge of the legal systems of their countries concerned~~. To that end, the organisational model of the EPPO should include, centrally, at least one representative per Member State~~;

Amendment 103 #

Monica MACOVEI, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point i

(i) in order to ensure a successful outcome for investigations and their coordination, those who are required to conduct them should have in-depth knowledge of the legal systems of the countries concerned. To that end, the organisational model of the EPPO should ~~include, centrally, at least one representative per~~ensure at central level the appropriate skills, experience and knowledge of the legal systems of the Member States;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point i

(i) in order to ensure a successful and fair outcome for investigations and their coordination, those who are required to conduct them should have in-depth knowledge of the legal systems of the countries concerned. To that end, the organisational model of the EPPO should include, centrally, at least one representative per Member State;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
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;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point ii

(ii) likewise, to ensure that decisions are taken promptly and efficiently, the decision-making process should be able to be expanded by the EPPO, with the assistance of national Delegated Prosecutors responsible for specific cases;deleted

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point iii

(iii) Lastly, to ensure that the EPPO is able to guarantee high standards of independence, efficiency, experience and professionalism, its staff should be as highly qualified as possible and should ensure that the objectives set out in this resolution are achieved. In particular, the staff members in question may come from the judiciary, from the legal profession or from other sectors in which they have acquired the aforementioned experience and professionalism. In this regard, the Commission’s statements in Paragraph 4 of the proposal’s Explanatory Memorandum, in relation to overall costs, should match actual requirements relating to the efficiency and functionality of the EPPO;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point iii

(iii) ~~lastly,~~in order to ensure that the EPPO is able to guarantee high standards of independence, efficiency, experience and professionalism, its staff should be as highly qualified as possible ~~and should ensure that the objectives set out in this resolution are achieved~~. In particular, the staff members in question may come from the judiciary or from other sectors in which they have acquired the aforementioned experience and professionalism. In this regard, the Commission’s statements in Paragraph 4 of the proposal’s Explanatory Memorandum, in relation to overall costs, should match actual requirements relating to the efficiency and functionality of the EPPO;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point iii

(iii) lastly, to ensure that the EPPO is able to guarantee high standards of independence, efficiency, experience and professionalism, its staff should be as highly qualified as possible and should ensure that the objectives set out in this resolution are achieved. In particular, the staff members in question may come from the judiciary or from other sectors in which they have acquired the aforementioned experience and professionalism as well as appropriate knowledge of the legal systems of the Member States. In this regard, the Commission’s statements in Paragraph 4 of the proposal’s Explanatory Memorandum, in relation to overall costs, should match actual requirements relating to the efficiency and functionality of the EPPO;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital –A (new)

– A. whereas the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union expressly provides in its Article 86 the possibility of establishing a European Public Prosecutor’s Office;

Amendment 110 #

Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point iii a (new)

(iiia) a control mechanism should be established and report annually on EPPOs activities;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Regrets the fact that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is not empowered to handle serious cross- border crime such as organised crime; encourages the Commission to carry out an impact assessment on this matter;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
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;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading after paragraph 7 (new)

II. Legislative recommendations

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. In accordance with the above, calls the Council to incorporate the following modifications in the text of the proposal:

Amendment 115 #

(22) Offences against the Union’s financial interests are often closely connected to other offences. ~~In the interest of procedural efficiency and t~~[…] To avoid a possible breach of the principle ne bis in idem, the competence of European Public Prosecutor’s Office should also cover offences which are not technically defined under national law as offences affecting the Union’s financial interests where their constituent facts are identical and inextricably linked with those of the offences affecting the financial interests of the Union. In such mixed cases, where the offence affecting the Union’s financial interests is pre~~ponder~~dominant, the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should be exercised after consultation with the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. Preponderance should be established on the basis of criteria such as the offences’ financial impact for the Union, for national budgets, the number of victims or other circumstances related to the offences’ gravity, or the applicable penalties.

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a – Modification 2 (new)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46

(46) The general rules of transparency applicable to Union agencies should also apply to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office ~~but only with regard to its administrative tasks so as not to jeopardise in any manner the requirement of confidentiality in its operational work. In the same manner~~, administrative inquiries conducted by the European Ombudsman should respect the requirement of confidentiality of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a – Modification 3 (new)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraphs 1 to 4

1. Where the offences referred to in Article 12 are ~~inextricably~~ linked with criminal offences other than those referred to in Article 12 ~~and their joint investigation and prosecution are in the interest of a good administration of justice the European Public Prosecutor’s Off~~the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall also be competent for those other criminal offences provided that the offences referred to in Article ~~shall also be competent for~~12 are predominant and those other criminal offences are ancillary, uand~~er the conditions that the offences referred to in Article 12 are preponderant~~ provided that the following cumulative conditions are met: - one particular set of facts simultaneously constitutes both offences affecting the Union’s financial interests and other offence(s); and - the offence(s) affecting the Union’s financial interest is/ are predominant and the other(s) is/are merely ancillary; and - the ofurther ~~criminal offences are based on identical fac~~prosecution and punishment of the other offence(s) would no longer be possible if they were not prosecuted and brought to judgment together with the offence(s) affecting the Union’s financial interests. If those conditions are not met, the Member State that is competent for the other offences shall also be competent for the offences referred to in Article 12. 2. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the national prosecution authorities shall consult each other in order to determine which authority has competence pursuant to paragraph 1. Where appropriate to facilitate the determination of such competence Eurojust may be associated in accordance with Article 57. 3. In case of disagreement between the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the national prosecution authorities over competence pursuant to in paragraph 1, the national judicial authority competent to decide on the attribution of competences concerning prosecution at national level shall decide on ancillary competence. 4. The determination of competence pursuant to this Article ~~shall not~~may be subject to review by the trial court as determined pursuant to Article 27 (4) of the proposal, of its own motion.

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a – Modification 4 (new)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraphs 1 to 5

1. The European Public Prosecutor and the European Delegated Prosecutors shall have the same powers as national public prosecutors in respect of prosecution and bringing a case to judgement, in particular the power to present trial pleas, participate in evidence taking and exercise the available remedies. 2. When the competent European Delegated Prosecutor considers the investigation to be completed, he/she shall submit a summary of the case with a draft indictment and the list of evidence to the European Public Prosecutor for review. Where he/she does not instruct to dismiss the case pursuant to Article 28 or where, upon his/her instruction to offer a transaction under Article 29, such offer was not accepted, the European Public Prosecutor shall instruct the European Delegated Prosecutor to bring the case before the competent national court with an indictment, or refer it back for further investigations. The European Public Prosecutor may also bring the case to the competent national court himself/herself. 3. The indictment submitted to the competent national court shall list the evidence to be adduced in trial. 4. The European Public Prosecutor shall choose, in close consultation with the European Delegated Prosecutor submitting the case ~~and bearing in mind the proper administration of justice~~, the jurisdiction of trial and determine the competent national court ~~taking into account~~on the basis of the following criteria: a) the place where the offence, or in case of several offences, the majority of the offences was committed; b) the place where the accused person has his/her habitual residence; c) the place where the evidence is located; d) the place where the direct victims have their habitual residence. 5. Where necessary for the purposes of recovery, administrative follow-up or monitoring, the European Public Prosecutor shall notify the competent national authorities, the interested persons and the relevant Union institutions, bodies, agencies of the indictment.

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a – Modification 5 (new)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraphs 1 to 4

1. The European Public Prosecutor shall dismiss the case where prosecution has become impossible on account of any of the following grounds: a) death of the suspected person; b) the conduct subject to investigation does not amount to a criminal offence; c) amnesty or immunity granted to the suspect; d) expiry of the national statutory limitation to prosecute; e) the suspected person has already been finally acquitted or convicted of the same facts within the Union or the case has been dealt with in accordance with Article 29~~. 2. The European Public Prosecutor may dismiss the case on any of the following grounds: a)~~; f) following a full, comprehensive and proportionate investigation by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, there is a lack of relevant evidence. 2. The European Public Prosecutor may dismiss the case if the offence is a minor offence according to national law implementing Directive 2013/XX/EU on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law; ~~b) lack of relevant evidence.~~ 3. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office may refer cases dismissed by it to OLAF or to the competent national administrative or judicial authorities for recovery, other administrative follow-up or monitoring. 4. Where the investigation was initiated on the basis of information provided by the injured party, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall inform that party thereof.

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital –A a (new)

-Aa. whereas the main objectives of establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is to contribute to the strengthening of the protection of the Union’s financial interests, to enhance the trust of EU businesses and citizens in the Union’s institutions and to ensure a more efficient and effective investigation and prosecution of offences affecting the EU financial interest, while fully respecting the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a – Modification 6 (new)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraphs 1 to 3

1. Where the case is cannot be dismissed ~~and it would serve the purpose of proper administration of justice~~under Article 28 […] and where an imprisonment penalty would be disproportionate even if the conduct were fully proven at trial, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office may, after the damage has been compensated, propose to the suspected person to pay a lump-sum fine which, once paid, entails the final dismissal of the case (transaction). If the suspected person agrees, he/she shall pay the lump sum fine to the Union. 2. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall supervise the collection of the financial payment involved in the transaction. 3. Where the transaction is accepted and paid by the suspected person, the European Public Prosecutor shall finally dismiss the case and officially notify the competent national law enforcement and judicial authorities and shall inform the relevant Union institutions, bodies, agencies thereof. ~~4. The dismissal referred to in paragraph 3 shall not be subject to judicial review.~~

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a – Modification 7 (new)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraphs 1 to 2

1. Evidence presented by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to the trial court, where the court considers that its admission would not adversely affect the fairness of the procedure or the rights of defence as enshrined in ~~Articles 47 and 48 of~~ the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, shall be admitted in the trial without any validation or similar legal process even if the national law of the Member State where the court is located provides for different rules on the collection or presentation of such evidence. 2. Once the evidence is admitted, the competence of national courts to assess freely the evidence presented by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office at trial shall not be affected.

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a – Modification 8 (new)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraphs 1 to 2

1. The suspect and accused person involved in the proceedings of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall have~~, in accordance with national law,~~ the right to remain silent when questioned, in relation to the facts that he/she is suspected of having committed, and shall be informed that he/she is not obliged to incriminate himself/herself. 2. The suspect and accused person shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty ~~according to national law~~.

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a – Modification 9 (new)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34

Any person suspected or accused of an offence within the scope of the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall have~~, in accordance with national law,~~ the right to be given legal assistance free or partially free of charge by national authorities if he/she has insufficient means to pay for it.

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a – Modification 10 (new)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36

1. ~~When adopting procedural measures in the performance of its functions~~For the purposes of judicial review, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be considered asto be a national authority ~~for the purpose of judicial review. 2. Where provisions of national law are rendered applicable by this Regulation, such provisions sh~~in respect of all procedural measures which it adopts in the course of its prosecution function before the competent trial court. For all not ~~be considered as provisions of Union law for the purpose of Article 267 of th~~her acts or omissions of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, it shall be Treatgarded as a Union body.

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a – Modification 11 (new)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 68

The ~~administrative activities of the~~ European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be subject to the inquiries of the European Ombudsman in relation to instances of maladministration in accordance with Article 228 of the Treaty.

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital – A

1. whereas crime – in particular organised crime – is increasingly taking on a cross- border dimension and the only effective response can ~~come from the EU, giving added value to the joint efforts of all~~therefore come from internal border control by the Member States;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Considers the Commission proposal to be a further step towards the establishment of a European criminal justice area;~~deleted

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Council to involve the European Parliament in its legislative work through a constant flow of information and ongoing consultation of Parliament to achieve an outcome that is essentially welcomed by both parties;deleted

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Instructs its President to call for continued scrutiny of the proposal with the Counci~~Rejects the proposal;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas ~~crime – in particular organised crime – is increasingly taking on a cross-border dimension and~~the EU has set itself the task of developing an area of freedom, security and justice, and whereas, pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, it respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, thereby taking on positive obligations which it must meet in order to honour that commitment and whereas in the case of fraud against the financial interests of the EU the only effective response can come from the EU, giving added value to the joint efforts of all the Member States;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas crime ~~- in particular organised crime- is increasingly taking on a cross- border dimension and the only~~s against the Union’s financial interests generate significant financial damages every year and an effective response ~~can come~~is needed from the EU giving added value to the joint efforts of all the Member States

Amendment 15 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Axel VOSS

Motion for a resolution
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 EU~~EU must give its response, giving added value to the joint efforts of all the Member States;

Amendment 16 #

A. whereas crime – in particular organised crime – is increasingly taking on a cross- border dimension and ~~the only~~a more effective response ~~can~~ comes from ~~the EU~~increased cooperation at the EU level, giving added value to the joint efforts of all the Member States;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas no harmonized European criminal law exists yet;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
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 19 #

Monica MACOVEI

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the principle of zero tolerance against the EU budget should be applied in order to address fraud against the financial interests of the European Union in a coherent and efficient manner;

Amendment 2 #

Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)

– having regard to Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital Aa (new)

Aa. whereas 10% of OLAF’s investigations involve cross-border organised crime, and whereas these investigations nevertheless account for 40% of the total financial impact in terms of the EU’s financial interests;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas respect for the rule of law as enshrined in the Treaties must be athe 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 22 #

Motion for a resolution
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 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas 14 national parliamentary chambers from 11 Member States have triggered the yellow card mechanism in relation to the Commission proposal and whereas the Commission has decided to maintain the proposal on 27 November 2013, nevertheless stating that it would take due account of the reasoned opinions of the national parliamentary chambers during the legislative process;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. Whereas 14 National Parliaments in 11 Member States have given reasoned opinions expressing their concerns on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity; whereas the Commission has decided to maintain the proposal as it stands;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas Article 86 (1) TFEU requires unanimity within the Council in order to establish a European Public Prosecutor and whereas it seems very unlikely that this unanimity will be reached and that therefore it seems more likely that some Member States will establish a European Public Prosecutor by means of enhanced cooperation which would require the Commission to present a new proposal;

Amendment 26 #

I. General principles

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. States that it is determined to decline its consent and reject the proposal for a Regulation and calls on the Council to do the same,

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

~~1. Considers the Commission proposal to be a further step towards the establishment of a European criminal justice area;~~deleted

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Considers~~Very much acknowledges the general intention of the Commission proposal to be a further step towards the establishment of a European criminal justice area; finds it however inconsistent to establish harmonised rules on a European Public Prosecutor’s Office and to have differing rules on procedural and defence rights in the Member States;

Amendment 3 #

Monica MACOVEI, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)

– having regard to Articles 263, 265, 267, 268 and 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Amendment 30 #

Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers the Commission proposal to be a further step towards ~~the establishment of a European criminal justice area~~a better coordination of Member States efforts to fight fraud with the EU Budget ;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers the Commission proposal to be a further step towards the establishment of a European criminal justice area and in strengthening the tax payers’ confidence in the EU;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. notes, moreover, that the added value of establishing a European Public Prosecutor’s Office will be greatest if all Member States take part rather than only some, since the financial interests of the Union and thus the interests of the European tax payers must be protected in all Member States without exception;

Amendment 33 #

Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that the powers of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should be limited to crimes affecting the financial interest of the Union, as set out in Article 86(1) TFEU, and its competences should remain in the remit of fight against fraud to the EU budget.

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that the proposal of the Commission exceeds the limits envisaged by Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which is the legal basis of the proposal. Therefore, considers that the European Commission should have used this proposal in order to initiate the creation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office; believes that a different proposal should be issued later, on the scope of competences, powers and procedures according to which the European Public Prosecutor and its delegates will act, based on legal provisions which according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union involve the European Parliament as co-legislator;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Regrets that the Commission has decided to maintain its proposal unchanged, despite the triggering of the yellow card procedure by 14 National Parliaments; asks the Commission to reconsider its position and present a new proposal with the view to better respect the principle of subsidiarity;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
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 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Council to extensively involve the European Parliament in its legislative work through a constant flow of information and ongoing consultation of Parliament to achieve an outcome that is in line with the changes brought to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union after the Lisbon process and which is essentially welcomed by both parties;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the European legislator, considering that the consistency of overall EU action in the field of justice is vital for its effectiveness, to deal with this proposal in the light of others that are closely linked to it, such as the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law ~~and~~, the proposal for a regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and other relevant instruments which already have been adopted in the field of criminal justice, in order to be able to ensure that it is fully compatible and consistently implemented;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the European legislator, considering that the consistency of overall EU action in the field of justice is vital for its effectiveness, to deal with this proposal in the light of others that are closely linked to it, such as the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law and the proposal for a regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), as well as the on-going legislative work in the field of procedural rights in order to be able to ensure that it is fully compatible and consistently implemented;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)

– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. ~~Calls on the Council, emphasising the greatest respect for the rule of law,~~Emphasises that the powers and practice of the European Public Prosecutors Office must respect the body of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and the constitutional traditions of the Member States; therefore calls on the Council to take due account of the following general recommendations:

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
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 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i

(i) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office should operate in ~~the~~ strict~~est compli~~ observance ~~with~~of the pri~~nciple of the natural court, which requires that the non- discretionary~~ght to a fair trial and the rule against bias, which requires binding and hierarchical criteria determining which competent court is to exert jurisdiction in accordance with Article 27 should be clear and known in advance; In particular, there should be sufficient objective links between the case and the chosen jurisdiction and the rights of the suspect should be taken into account;

Amendment 43 #

Monica MACOVEI, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON

Motion for a resolution
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;~~ ly established in advance, have a binding nature and be hierarchically categorised; furthermore, the determination of competence in accordance with those criteria should be subject to judicial review;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i a (new)

(ia) the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should be given full independence both from national governments and from EU institutions and be protected from any political pressure;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i a (new)

(ia) the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should fully respect the principle of the right to a fair trial, as provided for by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this respect, when deciding the national competent court, it should be guaranteed that binding and foreseeable criteria are considered, in order to avoid discretionary powers to be given to the European Public Prosecutor. Consequently, Article 27 (4) of the proposal should be redrafted with this aim;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
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 as they exceed in its current drafting the limits of the scope of Article 86(1) to (3) TFEU; this should be done in a way to ensure that the powers of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office extend to offences other than those affecting the Union’s financial interests only where cumulatively: - One particular set of facts simultaneously constitutes both offences affecting the Union’s financial interests and other offence(s); and - the offence(s) affecting the Union’s financial interest is/ are predominant and the other(s) is/are merely ancillary; and - the further prosecution and punishment of the other offence(s) would no longer be possible if they were not prosecuted and brought to judgment together with the offence(s) affecting the Union’s financial interests;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
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 48 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~suggest~~demands that the definitions set out in Article 13 of the Commission proposal, concerning ancillary competence ~~should be carefully reviewed;~~ are clarified; in particular to ensure that the EPPO does not extend to offences other than those affecting the Union’s financial interests crimes should only fall within its competence when the following cumulative conditions have been met: -One particular conduct simultaneously constitutes offences affecting the Union’s financial interests and other offence(s); - The offence(s) affecting the Union’s financial interests is/are predominant and the other(s) is/are merely ancillary; - and 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 49 #

Motion for a resolution
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 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)

– having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights,

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii

(ii) the scope of the competence of the EPPO should be precisely determined, to enable the ~~criminal act~~offences 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~~As regards the ancillary offences that may be subject to the competence of the EPPO, clear and exhaustive conditions should be established. The European Parliament calls in this regard for the careful revision of the provisions in Article 13 of the Commission proposal;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii a (new)

(iia) the Directive 2013/xx/EU, as provided for in Article 12 of the proposal, according to which the offences for which the European Public Prosecutor will be competent is not yet adopted. Therefore, the text of the proposal should specifically mention that the European Public Prosecutor cannot prosecute offences which are not yet set out in the relevant Member States’ law, already at the time of the offence;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii b (new)

(iib) The change by the trial court of the legal classification of the incriminated conduct to an offence not listed in the directive should not terminate the competence of the European Public Prosecutor. Therefore, such a provision, together with a set of cumulative criteria should be added in the text of Article 12 of the proposal. The criteria should include the following: - the incriminated factual conduct being tried, i.e. the acts and/or omissions underlying the offence that the court henceforth considers relevant, does not exceed the conduct that was targeted in the initial indictment; - the Union’s financial interests remain affected by the aspects of the incriminated conduct which the trial court henceforth considers to be relevant; and - the limits of competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office set out in Article 13 of the proposal continue not to be exceeded.

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii c (new)

(iic) The drafting of Article 13(1), first sub-paragraph, of the proposal, exceeds the limits of Article 86(1) to (3) TFEU, as interpreted in the light of paragraph 4 thereof. Therefore, it should be redrafted in order to define terms like "ancillary" and "predominant" and ensure respect for the principle of ne bis in idem, by making a reference to the identity of conduct and also requiring unity of offender. The text of the mentioned article should specifically mention that the powers of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office extend to offences other than those affecting the Union’s financial interests only where cumulatively: - one particular conduct simultaneously constitutes offences affecting the Union’s financial interests and other offence(s); and - where the offence(s) affecting the Union’s financial interests is/are predominant and the other(s) is/are merely ancillary; and - where 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 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii d (new)

(iid) the trial court should be able to judicially review the determination of competence in accordance with the above- mentioned criteria. Therefore, Article 13(4) of the proposal should be redrafted accordingly;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii e (new)

(iie) the establishment of competence under Article 12 of the proposal and the choice of a jurisdiction, should be checked by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office continuously in advance of the initiation, and throughout the investigation, until each participating Member State has implemented the future Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iii

(iii) the ~~investigative~~ tools available to the EPPO should be ~~uniform,~~ precisely identified and compatible with all the legal systems of the Member States;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
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 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iii

(iii) the investigative tools available to the EPPO in accordance with Article 26 should be uniform, precisely identified and compatible with all the legal systems of the Member States, in addition the investigative tools need to be available in the Member State where they are ordered as well as in the executing Member State and the criteria for the use of investigative measures should be spelled out in more detail;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)

– having regard to the opinion of European Parliament’s Legal Service,

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
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 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv

(iv) The admissibility of evidence and its assessment in accordance with Article 30 are key elements in the ~~ascertainment of guilt~~criminal investigation. 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 procedural safeguards and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union more generally; in addition the evidence gathered should not only comply with the national law of the executing Member States, but also with the law of the Member States where the investigative measure is ordered;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
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 64 #

Motion for a resolution
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 not only with personal defence safeguards but with all the rights as guaranteed by the Charter both for the admissibility and the assessment of evidence;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv a (new)

(iva) the admission and assessment of evidence gathered by the European Public Prosecutor, by the competent trial court should be done in the light of the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv a (new)

(iva) Article 28 on dismissal grounds which are available unilaterally to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office requires the clarification that, where a lack of relevant evidence (Article 28(2)(b) of the proposal) cannot foreseeably be remedied by further proportionate investigative steps, dismissal is mandatory; As regards dismissal after transaction under Article 29 of the proposal, the condition of “proper administration of justice” should be replaced by more specific criteria to avoid arbitrary choices;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)

– having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament Legal Service on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor (D(2013)64737),

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
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 71 #

Motion for a resolution
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 not only decisions taken centrally by the Public Prosecutor, as described in Articles 13, 27, 28 and 29 concerning ~~competence~~ancillary competence to prosecute, the jurisdiction of trial and the competent national court, dismissal of cases or transactions, should logically be subject to appeal before the Court of Justice.; Considers that the provisions on judicial review contained in Article 36 of the proposal seek 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; considers that thereby Article 36 of the proposal disproportionately interferes with the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 (1) of the Charter by not allowing for review by the Court of Justice;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v

(v) ~~all~~ decisions taken by the European Public Prosecutor should be subject to ~~legal challenge before a superior~~judicial review before the competent 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 in order to fully respect the right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 47(2) of the Charter;

Amendment 74 #

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v a (new)

(va) the provisions as set out in Article 36(1) of the proposal raise serious concerns about legality in respect of the circumvention of the Union courts’ jurisdiction as defined in Articles 263, 265 and 268 TFEU and disproportionately interfere with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 47(1) of the Charter;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v b (new)

(vb) the dismissal grounds as set out in Article 28 of the proposal would profit from further specification, in particular that after the dismissal of a case relating to minor offences, the national prosecution authorities are not prevented from further investigating and prosecuting the case should they be allowed to under their laws; and that, where a lack of relevant evidence cannot be foreseeably be remedied by further proportionate investigative steps, dismissal is mandatory;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v c (new)

(vc) arbitrary administration of justice has to be avoided under all circumstances; thus, the condition of “proper administration of justice” as a ground for transaction as set out in Article 29(1) of the proposal should be replaced by more specific criteria. Transaction should in particular be excluded as of the time of the indictment, and in any event in cases which can be dismissed under Article 28 of the proposal as well as in serious cases;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v a (new)

(va) The right to an effective judicial remedy should be upheld at any time during the Public Prosecutor’s activity throughout the Union. Therefore, the provisions of Article 36 (1) should be redrafted because the Commissions’ current text, by denying the European Public Prosecutor’s Office the status of Union body interferes with the provisions of Article 263, 265 and 268 of the TFEU. In the same time, Article 36 (2) raises serious concerns about legality. It should, therefore, be redrafted, to the extent it seeks to withhold judicial review questions on the validity of acts and omissions of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, as foreseen in Article 267(1)(b) TFEU, and to the extent it potentially withholds judicial review questions on the interpretation of the Treaties and of the Regulation in legal situations arising from the application of provisions of national law.

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
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 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v b (new)

(vb) the existence of mandatory dismissal grounds should be checked as soon as possible in the course of the investigation, and dismissal should follow without undue delay upon the finding that one of the mandatory grounds applies;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v c (new)

(vc) before dismissing a case for lack of relevant evidence, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office must carry out proportionate investigative steps to gather evidence, in accordance with its investigative powers and applicable procedural rights;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v d (new)

(vd) if the European Public Prosecutor decides to dismiss a case, on the basis of Article 28 (2) of the proposal, the national prosecution authorities should not be prevented from further investigating and prosecuting the case if they deem it necessary and the national law allows it;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v e (new)

(ve) in order to fully uphold the right to a fair trial and the defence rights, dismissal of a case upon transaction should be limited to the phase of criminal proceedings, before indictment;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v f (new)

(vf) transaction under Article 29 should not be possible in cases where mandatory dismissal is also required or otherwise possible under Article 28 of the proposal and when the conduct or offence at stake are lacking in seriousness;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v a (new)

(va) As the European Public Prosecutor’s powers require not just judicial review by the Court of Justice, but also oversight by the European Parliament and national parliaments, relevant provisions need to be included in particular to ensure effective and coherent practices among Member States and compatibility with the rule of law;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v b (new)

(vb) as regards Article 59 (IV), the EPPO must be fully integrated in the system of judicial assistance which is in place between the EU member states on the one hand and the EU member states and third countries on the other hand; concerning the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA), this integration should take place in the course of the revision of the framework decision or a horizontal measure applying to all mutual recognition measures, as demanded by the European Parliament on 13 January 2014 (Recommendations to the Commission on the Review of the European Arrest Warrant);

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
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 which means that mere minimum standards are not offering an adequate level of protection given that the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor will mean the Europeanization of law enforcement in the field of fight against crimes against the interests of the European Union and that, respecting the principle of the rule of law, such a proposal does only make sense if there is a subsequent harmonisation of defence rights at the highest level. It should be noted that not even the Roadmap concerning safeguards 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;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
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 safeguard~~for 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;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
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 safeguards 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; recalls that proper implementation of the measures adopted under the Roadmap concerning interpretation and translation, the right to information and access to a lawyer as well as the adoption of common minimum standards relating to the presumption of innocence, legal aid and minimum standards for pre-trial detention are important pre-conditions for the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office; recalls that the Roadmap concerning safeguards in criminal proceeding was not adopted with the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office in mind and therefore calls on the Council to reflect on possible additional safeguards necessary in this context;

Amendment 9 #

– having regard to the letter of Morten Kjaerum, Director of the Fundamental Rights Agency, to President Martin Schulz on the request for opinion on fundamental rights aspects in relation to proposed European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 14 January 2014,

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point i a (new)

(ia) after expiry of the relevant transposition period, non-transposition, or wrong transposition, into national law of one of the procedural rights acts of Union law shall never be interpreted against an individual subject to investigation or prosecution and their application will always be in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point i b (new)

(ib) with a view to respecting the principle of equality of arms, the national law applicable to a suspect or accused person to which this regulation applies, should be the one which also applies to the investigative or prosecutorial acts of the European Public Prosecutor;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point ii

(ii) compliance with the ne bis in idem principle should be e~~nsured;~~xplicitly ensured in the wording of the regulation.

Amendment 93 #

(iii) the pro~~secution should reconcile legal certainty with the protection of personal data;~~ tection of personal data has to be duly taken into account at all stages of the prosecution, which means that the following general principles have to be respected. Data has to be: (a) processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent and verifiable manner in relation to the data subject; (b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes; (c) adequate, relevant, and limited to the minimum necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed; they shall only be processed if, and as long as, the purposes could not be fulfilled by processing information that does not involve personal data; (d) accurate and kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay; (e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than it is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed; (f) processed under the responsibility and liability of the controller, who shall ensure and be able to demonstrate compliance with all data protection provisions; (g) processed in a way that effectively allows the data subject to exercise his or her rights; (h) processed in a way that protects against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures; (i) processed by only those duly authorised staff of the competent authorities who need them for the performance of their tasks;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii

(iii) the prosecution should reconcile legal certainty with the protection of personal data, to this end the three-year storage period could be revised to better take into account the needs of the work of the European Public Prosecutor and the delegated prosecutors;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii

(iii) tThe prosecution should ~~reconcile legal certainty with~~comply with Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the applicable EU legislation on the protection of personal data;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii a (new)

(iiia) Articles 56(2) and 60 of the proposed Regulation should be redrafted in order to ensure specification and foreseeability when personal data is further transmitted to the entities mentioned in those articles, thus ensuring compliance with the principle of purpose limitation;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii b (new)

(iiib) Article 61(2) of the proposed Regulation should be redrafted in order to ensure transparency and foreseeability, according to the provisions of Article 8(1) and (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in cases when personal data is transferred by the European Public Prosecutor to third countries or international organisations;

Amendment 98 #

(iiic) Article 61(3) of the proposed Regulation should be entirely redrafted in order to avoid discretionary powers to the European Public Prosecutor with respect to the entities where the transfer of data is envisaged, the need for the transfer etc. under the provisions of this article. The European Data Protection Supervisor and/or the European Commission should be fully involved in the decision making process;

Amendment 99 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii d (new)

(iiid) any individual should have the possibility to address a national competent court or authority within the Member State in which the individual is resident whenever his or her rights are infringed by data processing or decision making within the scope of this Regulation;

source: PE-527.922

2015/01/28 LIBE 87 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph B a (new)

B a. Whereas it is regrettable that until now the Commission has not been able to provide the Parliament with information on the reasons behind the low rate of indictment, and, in particular on the question of how much is due to lack of quality of the information provided by OLAF to Member States, as basis for its judicial recommendations;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Reaffirms its strong willingness to ~~address~~support the priorities for the establishment of the EPPO and to identify the principles and the conditions under which it might give its consent;

Amendment 11 #

Kati PIRI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Council to keep it fully informed and constantly consulted; urges the Council to take its views ~~also~~ into due account, as a necessary precondition to ensure the broadest democratic legitimacy of, and consensus on the legislative outcome;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Council to keep it fully informed and constantly consulted; urges the Council to take its views ~~also~~ into due account, as a ~~necessary~~ precondition to ~~ensure the broadest consensus~~the adoption onf the legislative outcome;

Amendment 13 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Caterina CHINNICI, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Council to ensure the highest level of transparency, keeping it fully informed and constantly consulted; urges the Council to take its views also into due account, as a necessary precondition to ensure the broadest consensus on the legislative outcome;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Recalls that the European Public Prosecutor's Office should have competence for offences related to fraud against the financial interests of the European Union. With that in mind, recalls that the relevant criminal offences are to be laid down in the proposed Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (the so-called 'PIF Directive'). While acknowledging the progress made by the co-legislators in negotiations for the adoption of the PIF Directive, calls on the Council to renew its efforts to find agreement on that directive as a pre-condition for the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Vicky MAEIJER, Lorenzo FONTANA, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
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 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. DeCondemns i~~t crucial to ensure within a short period of time the establishment of a single, strong, independent~~n the strongest words the establishment of a EPPO that iswill be able to investigate, prosecute and bring to court the perpetrators of criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests; ~~and c~~Considersing that ~~any weaker solution would be a cost for the Union budget;~~justice is solely a competence of the individual EU countries; therefore calls upon the Council to immediately cease the negotiations on the establishment of a possible EPPO.

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~cour~~judgement 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 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Deems it crucial to ensure within a short period of time the establishment of a competent, single, strong, independent EPPO that is able to investigate, prosecute and bring to court 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 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph C

C. Whereas some Member States might be less effective in the detection and prosecution of fraud affecting the EU financial interests, thus harming the taxpayers of all EU Member States who contribute to the Union budget;

Amendment 20 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Deems it crucial to ensure ~~within a short period of time~~ the establishment of a single~~, strong,~~ and independent EPPO that is able to investigate, prosecute and bring to court 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 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Deems it crucial to ensure ~~within a short period of time~~ the establishment of a single, strong, independent EPPO that is able to investigate, prosecute and bring to court 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 22 #

Nathalie GRIESBECK, Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Deems it crucial to ensure within a short period of time the establishment of a single, strong, independent EPPO that is able to investigate, prosecute and bring to court the perpetrators of criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests also in view of extending its powers to include serious crime having a cross- border dimension while fulfilling Treaties' obligation; and considers that any weaker solution would be a cost for the Union budget;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Regrets that the European Public Prosecutor's Office does not have competence for serious forms of cross- border crime; and asks the European Commission to propose, once the European Public Prosecutor's Office is established and within the shortest period of time, an enlargement of its mandate in order to cover certain categories of serious cross-border crimes, such as organised crime and terrorism. The European Parliament must be fully involved during the whole procedure of this review.

Amendment 24 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Caterina CHINNICI, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Deems it equally important that the position of EPPO in relation to OLAF and Eurojust is further clarified, especially if EPPO will not become operational in all Member States;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Points out that it is of the utmost importance that the relationship between the European Public Prosecutor´s Office and other existing bodies, such as Eurojust and OLAF, should be defined and clearly demarcated. Calls on the Council to clarify the competence of each existing body in charge of protecting the Union's financial interests;

Amendment 26 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Caterina CHINNICI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

An independent European Public Prosecutor's Office

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that the structure of the EPPO should ~~reflect a maximum degree of~~assure independence and therefore calls for openness and transparency in the selection and appointment procedures of the European Chief Prosecutor, the Deputy European Chief Prosecutors and the European Prosecutors;

Amendment 28 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Caterina CHINNICI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that the structure of the EPPO should reflect a maximum degree of independence and therefore calls for openness, objectiveness and transparency in the selection and appointment procedures of the European Prosecutors;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that the structure of the EPPO should reflect a maximum degree of independence and therefore calls for openness and transparency in the selection and appointment procedures of the European Chief Prosecutor, his/her deputies, the European Prosecutors and the European Delegated Prosecutors;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph E

E. Whereas different jurisdictions, legal traditions ~~and~~, law enforcement systems and law enforcement capabilities in the Member States should not hinder or undermine the fight against fraud and crime affecting the Union’s financial interests;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that the structure of the EPPO should ~~reflect a maximum degree of independence and~~be fully independent from national governments and EU institutions and protected from political influence and pressure; therefore calls for openness and transparency in the selection and appointment procedures of the European Prosecutors;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

Amendment 32 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Caterina CHINNICI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the importance of its involvement in the appointment procedures 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;the independence of judicial bodies and protection from political interference and thus suggests transparent appointment procedures, solely based on adequate professionalism, experience and skills,

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the importance of its involvement in the appointment procedures for the European Prosecutors and suggests an open competition for candidates with ~~adequate~~the necessary professionalism, experience and skills, who might be shortlisted by the European Commission, evaluated by an independent panel of experts ~~and heard by the European Parliament~~, with the final decision on appointment to be made by the Council and approved by the European Parliament; the European Parliament and the Council should appoint the European Chief Prosecutor by common accord;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the ~~imp~~need fort an~~ce 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 35 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Caterina CHINNICI, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. The members of the College shall be dismissed through the same procedure: on decision by the European Court of Justice after request by the Council, Commission, European Parliament and/or the European Chief Prosecutor.

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Stresses that Member States must involve national judicial self-governing bodies in the nomination procedures for European Delegated Prosecutors in accordance with national laws and practice;

Amendment 37 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Caterina CHINNICI, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Takes the view that in order to ensure the full independence of the European Prosecutors, and to prevent any perceived conflict of interest, the position of European Prosecutor should be a full- time position. In that respect, does not agree with the draft provision authorising them to discharge their duties on a part- time basis as proposed in Article 11(3) of Council document 166993/14 of 18 December 2014 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (hereafter 'the Council text');

Amendment 38 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Caterina CHINNICI, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Welcomes the provision of an annual reporting to the EU Institutions in order to guarantee a continuous assessment of the activities carried out by the new body; contained in the Council text; calls on the Council to ensure that the annual report contains, inter alia, details on the willingness of national authorities to cooperate with the European Public Prosecutor's Office;

Amendment 39 #

Caterina CHINNICI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that rules governing the division of ~~jurisdiction~~competence between the EPPO and the national authorities should be clear and avoid any misinterpretation in the operational phase: the EPPO should have ~~jurisdiction~~priority competence to investigate and prosecute the offences constituting fraud to the Union's financial interests according to the directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law; Therefore, the EPPO should decide first whether it has competence and before national authorities start an own investigation in order to avoind parallel investigations which are inefficient.

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph E

E. Wwhereas ~~different jurisdictions, legal traditions and law enforcement systems in the Member States should not hinder~~ Article 67(1) TFEU provides that the Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fund~~ermine the fight against fraud and crime affecting the Un~~amental rights and the different legal systems and tradition’s ~~financial interest~~of the Member States;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 41 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that rules governing the division of jurisdiction between the EPPO and the national authorities should be clear and avoid any misinterpretation in the operational phase:, the EPPO should have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the offences constituting fraud to the Union's financial interests according to the directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’'s financial interests by means of criminal law; the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office should extend to offences other than those affecting the Union's financial interests only where cumulatively: (a) the particular conduct simultaneously constitutes an offence affecting the Union's financial interests and other offences; and (b) the offences affecting the Union's financial interests are predominant and the other are merely ancillary; and (c) the other offences would be barred from further trying and punishment if they were not prosecuted and brought to judgment together with the offences affecting the Union's financial interests; In case of disagreement between the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the national prosecution authorities over the exercise of competence, the College of the European Public Prosecutor's Office shall decide who shall investigate and prosecute. The determination of competence in accordance with those criteria should always be subject to judicial review;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that rules governing the division of jurisdiction between the EPPO and the national authorities should be clear ~~and avoid any~~ly defined in order to avoid any uncertainty or misinterpretation in the operational phase: the EPPO should have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the offences constituting fraud to the Union's financial interests according to the directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’'s financial interests by means of criminal law;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
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 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Considers that the EPPO should also monitor and, if necessary, evocate those cases falling under the national jurisdiction, where factually established lack of effectiveness in the investigations poses a risk of failure to prosecute the fraud; in particular, considers that this solution could be applied when the limitation period is due to expire and there is evidence of inactivity by the investigators at the national level;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
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 str~~ansaction should be taken at the central level by the Chambers~~ucture of Eurojust; therefore competences should be unambiguously defined;

Amendment 47 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Caterina CHINNICI, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Takes note~~Deeply regrets 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 and supported by the European Parliament in its previous interim report; in this regard, ~~believes~~it is essential that the decisions concerning the choice of the competent jurisdiction, the dismissal of a case ~~and~~, the transaction, the reallocation and the choice to prosecute, should be taken at the central level by the Chambers;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
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 d~~ismissal of~~ecision to prosecute, the decision to dismiss a case, the decision to reallocate a case and the decision on transaction should all be taken at the central level by the ~~Chambers;~~ Permanent Chambers referred to in Article 9 of the Council text;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
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 5 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Caterina CHINNICI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph E

E. Whereas different jurisdictions, legal traditions ~~and~~, law enforcement and judicial systems in the Member States should not hinder or undermine the fight against fraud and crime affecting the Union’s financial interests;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. In the light of that proposed collegiate structure, calls on the Council to provide details of the impact on the EU budget which will be brought about by the new proposed structure, particularly bearing in mind that the original Commission proposal was intended to be cost-efficient, relying heavily on existing resources from both OLAF and Eurojust;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Underlines that the Chambers should play a leading role in investigations and in the prosecutions and not limit theirs activities to mere functions of coordination, but should have the authority to supervise the work of the European Delegated Prosecutors in the field;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Underlines that the Chambers should play athe leading role in investigations and in the prosecutions and not limit theirs activities to mere functions of coordination, but should supervise the work of the European Delegated Prosecutors in the field;

Amendment 53 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Underlines that the Chambers should play a leading role in monitoring investigations and ~~in the~~ prosecutions ~~and not limit theirs activities to mere~~, particularly they should carry out functions of coordination, but ~~should supervise the work of the European Delegated Prosecutors in the field;~~they could also a posteriori review negative decisions to dismiss the case or not to investigate or prosecute. However, they should not in principle interfere with the pending criminal proceedings in pre-trial stage and should not give any specific operational instructions.

Amendment 54 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Is concerned over~~Welcomes the automatic link between a European Prosecutor in the central Office and a case lodged in his or her Member State, because this could ~~lead to evident shortcomings in terms of the independence of the prosecutors and the even distribution of the cases;~~guarantee the necessary knowledge, experience and expertise of the national law enforcement systems. In such a setting European Prosecutor could supervise the work of the European Delgated Prosecutors in the field. However, the problem of uneven distribution of cases for supervision should be tackled, e.g. also with the help of EPPO personnel in the central office.

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls therefore for a rational organisation of the workload of the Office at the central level: the ~~allocation system of the cases among Chambers should follow predetermined and objective criteria, and at a later stage a specific specialisation of~~European Prosecutor competences shall be limited to a supervision role of its European Delegated Prosecutors and to report to the Chamber in charge of the case; the allocation system of the cases among Chambers should follow random and unpredictable distribution system; as far as possible the designated chamber shall not be composed of the European Prosecutor originally from the ~~Cha~~Member~~s might be envisaged;~~ State where the offence took place.

Amendment 56 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

~~14. Is convinced that the necessary knowledge, experience and expertise of the national law enforcement systems will be guaranteed also by the EPPO personnel in the central office;~~deleted

Amendment 57 #

Davor Ivo STIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Is convinced that the necessary knowledge, experience and expertise of the national law enforcement systems will be guaranteed also by the EPPO personnel in the central office~~14. Stresses the need to select EPPO personnel in the central office that will have, as a team, the necessary knowledge of the national law enforcement systems of the 28 Member States;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls on the legislator to ensure streamlined procedures for the EPPO to obtain the authorisation of investigative measures in cross-border cases, in accordance with the law of the Member States where the measure in question is executed;, and with full respect for the procedural guarantees laid down in both European and national legislation.

Amendment 59 #

Caterina CHINNICI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 6 #

Kati PIRI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph F

~~F. Whereas terrorism is financed also by organised crime, and criminal groups collect funds through fraud;~~deleted

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls on the legislator to ensure streamlined procedures for the EPPO to ~~obtain the authorisation of~~establish investigativeon measures in cross- border cases, in accordance with the law of the Member States where the measure in question is executed;

Amendment 61 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls on the legislator to ensure streamlined procedures for the EPPO to obtain the authorisation of investigative measures in cross-border ~~case~~programs and projects, in accordance with the law of the Member States where the measure in question is executed;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls on the legislator to ensure streamlined procedures for the EPPO to obtain the authorisation of investigative measures in cross-border cases, in accordance with the law of the Member States where the measure in question is ~~executed~~requested and executed; recalls that the co-legislators agreed on criteria for Member States to request investigative measures based on the principle of mutual recognition in Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order in Criminal Matters. Considers that the same criteria should apply in respect of investigative measures to be authorised by the EPPO particularly with regard to the grounds for refusal;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Council to ensure the admissibility of the evidence gathered by the EPPO throughout the Union, as this is crucial for the effectiveness of the prosecutions, keeeping in regard all legislation concerning the protection of personal data;

Amendment 64 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Caterina CHINNICI, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Council to ensure the admissibility of the evidence gathered by the EPPO with full respect for the relevant European and national legislation throughout the Union, as this is crucial for the effectiveness of the prosecutions;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Council to ~~ensure~~provide clarity regarding the admissibility of the evidence gathered by the EPPO throughout the Union, as this is crucial for the effectiveness of the prosecutions. The conditions for admissibility of evidence should be such as to respect all rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights case law in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
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 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Council to ensure the admissibility of the evidence gathered by the EPPO throughout the Union, and on Member States to respect the uniform application of the rules on admissibility of evidence submitted by EPPO, as this is crucial for the effectiveness of the prosecutions;

Amendment 68 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Caterina CHINNICI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Calls on the legislator to ensure the EPPO to apply the European arrest warrant;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Reiterates the need for the European Public Prosecutor's Office to seek all relevant evidence whether inculpatory or exculpatory, In addition, insists that it is necessary to grant the suspect or accused in any investigation undertaken by the European Public Prosecutor's Office certain rights concerning evidence, in particular: (a) The suspect or accused should have the right to present evidence for the consideration of the European Public Prosecutor's Office; (b) The suspect or accused should have the right to request the European Public Prosecutor's Office to gather any evidence relevant to the investigation, including appointing experts and hearing witnesses;

Amendment 7 #

Vicky MAEIJER, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph F

F. Whereas terrorism is financed also by organised crime, and criminal groups collect funds through fraud; (Prosecution of crimes in general is the sole competence of the individual EU member countries. This recital takes into account the future expansion of the competences of an EPPOdeleted Or. en which is undesirable. Therefore this recital is redundant.)

Amendment 70 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Caterina CHINNICI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16 b. Given the possible multiple jurisdictions for cross-border offences falling under the competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, considers it essential to ensure that the European Prosecutors, European Delegated Prosecutors and national prosecuting authorities fully respect the principle of ne bis in idem in respect of prosecutions relating to offences falling under the competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office;

Amendment 71 #

Kati PIRI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Affirms that ~~the right to a judicial remedy~~respect for fundamental rights, including the right to a judicial remedy and the right to a fair trial, should be upheld at all times in respect of the EPPO's activity and recognises also the need for the EPPO to operate effectively without undue delay;

Amendment 72 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Affirms that the right to a judicial remedy should be upheld at all times in respect of the EPPO's activity ~~and recognises also the need for the EPPO to operate effectively without undue delay~~; therefore, any decision taken by the European Public Prosecutor's Office should be subject to judicial review before the competent court; in that regard, insists that decisions taken by the European Public Prosecutor before or independently from the trial, such as the decision to launch an investigation, the choice of jurisdiction for prosecution, the dismissal of a case or a transaction, should be subject to judicial review before the Union Courts;

Amendment 74 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Caterina CHINNICI, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Believes that for the purposes of the judicial review of all investigative and other procedural measures adopted in its prosecution function, the EPPO should be considered a national authority before the competent courts of the Member States;deleted

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Recalls that~~Given that the proposals for legislative measures at Union level regarding the procedural rights of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings have not yet all been adopted and that protection of those rights at Union level is in any case not comprehensive, reiterates the necessity for the new Office ~~should~~to carry out its activities ~~with~~in full respect for the rights ~~enshrined in~~of suspects and accused in so far as they are enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union, Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as in those leg~~al framework provided by the Union on the~~islative measures already adopted at Union level on procedural rights of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings and on the protection of personal data;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
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 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Requests the Commission to ensure that procedural rights in cases investigated by the EPPO are in no way inferior to those established by European law on procedural rights in criminal law cases, and to provide the Parliament with additional information on this matter;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Calls the Council to assure an effective access to legal aid in all Member States relating to the activities of any suspect and accused person involved in the proceedings of the EPPO.

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Urges the Council to follow the recommendations stated above and underlines that those conditions are essential to give its consent to the Council's draft regulation;

Amendment 8 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Jan Philipp ALBRECHT, Caterina CHINNICI, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph F

F. Whereas terrorism ~~is financed also by organised crime, and criminal groups~~and any kind of organised crime, including mafia style criminal organisations are financed and collect funds also through fraud fuelling corruption and mismanagement of public funds;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Recalls that the proposed Directive on Legal Aid has not yet been adopted by the co-legislators. Affirms that if and when adopted that Directive should apply equally to all suspects and accused under investigation or being prosecuted by the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Emphasises that in the absence of an agreed EU directive on legal aid, it is imperative that all suspects and accused in investigations and prosecutions carried out by the European Public Prosecutor's Office have the right to legal aid in accordance with the relevant national law;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Emphasises that all suspects and accused in investigations and prosecutions carried out by the European Public Prosecutor's Office have the right to the protection of their personal data, also applying to judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation, as stated by Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 82 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Emilian PAVEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)

19 b. Requests the Commission to examine in detail which are the reasons for the low rate of indictment following OLAF's judicial recommendations and to submit proposals for improving the quality of the information provided by OLAF to Member States;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)

19 b. With reference to Article 19(2) of the Council text, insists that national authorities carrying out investigations of offences which may fall under the competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office should be obliged to inform the European Public Prosecutor's Office of such an investigation. To ensure the independence and effectiveness of the Office, reiterates the need for the European Public Prosecutor's Office to have the right to take over such investigations where it determines that that is appropriate;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)

19 b. Stresses that the processing of personal data carried out by the EPPO are subject to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, under the supervision of European Data Protection Supervisor;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)

19 c. Requests the Commission to submit additional information to the Parliament on how OLAF, Eurojust and the EPPO will work together in the future and how the EPPO can make use of the existing expertise in both OLAF and Eurojust;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)

19 c. So as to ensure legal consistency amongst different instruments setting out Union data protection law, calls for the adaptation of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 to the data protection rules that will be established by the proposed data protection package which includes a proposal for a (General Data Protection Regulation), and a proposal for a DIRECTIVE regarding the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 d (new)

19 d. Stresses that specific provisions on data protection contained in EPPO should only complement and particularize Regulation 45/2001 and only to the extent it is necessary.

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph F b (new)

F b. Whereas Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union allows for extending the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to include serious crime having a cross- border dimension.

source: 546.850

2015/02/19 JURI 28 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to take into account our deep concerns regarding the proposal of the regulation, since it is not in accordance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity and therefore open a new debate on the subject;

Amendment 10 #

Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the proposal that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should present an annual report to the EU institutions, in order to ensure transparency and assess the general lines of its activity~~, and stresses th~~; calls for the report to be fac~~t that this should not constitute a way of influencing the future activity of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office by any of the EU institu~~companied, where appropriate, by proposals for adaptations, in particular as regards the extension of the scope of the Regulations;

Amendment 11 #

Laura FERRARA

Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that the Council should be more ambitious in its proposal extending the powers of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to include serious crime having a cross border dimension and at the same time complying with the obligation provided for in Article 86 paragraph 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Amendment 12 #

Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises th~~e need, as regards the~~at the structure of the EPPO should assure independence and therefore calls for openness and transparency in the selection and appointment procedures of the European ~~public p~~Chief Prosecutors, fthe Deputy European Chief Prosecutors an ~~open and transpar~~d the European prosecutors, suggests an opent competition for candidates ~~fulfilling the required criteria of~~with adequate professional~~ism,~~ experience~~, and independence, and suggests, in terms of procedure, that they~~ and skills, who 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 agree~~heard and approved by Parliament;

Amendment 13 #

Paragraph 4

4. ~~Emphasises the need, as regards the appointment of~~Stresses stresses the need for an open and transparent selection procedure to appoint the European pPublic pProsecutor~~s, 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 14 #

Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises the need, as regards the appointment of the European public prosecutors as well as European delegated prosecutors, for an open and transparent competition for candidates fulfilling the required criteria of professionalism, experience, and independence, and suggests in terms of procedure, that they European public prosecutors 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 agreement;

Amendment 15 #

Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises the need, as regards the appointment of the European public prosecutors, for an open and transparent and independent 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 agreement;

Amendment 16 #

Paragraph 5

5. Recommends that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office pay special attention to the appointment of the European prosecutors and the European delegated prosecutors and to the fulfilment of the criteria regarding qualifications, professional experience and independence insuring balanced geographical representation;

Amendment 17 #

Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Reiterates that the in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality the competencies of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should be strictly limited to examining and investigating serious criminal offences of cross-border nature against financial interests of the EU, whereas investigations and examinations of minor criminal offences against financial interests of the EU should fully remain in competencies of Member States;

Amendment 18 #

Paragraph 6

6. Underlines the need for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to examine and investigate with equal rigour cases of serious criminal offences against financial interests of the EU from all Member States, irrespective of any geographical considerations, past cases or surveys, and ~~adopt~~having a qualitative approach based on objective criteria; but calls on the Commission to sufficiently clarify the term of ‘single legal area’, since it might indicate the creation of ‘European criminal jurisdiction’ that would go beyond the framework given by primary law;

Amendment 19 #

Sajjad KARIM

Paragraph 6

6. Underlines the need for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to examine and investigate with equal rigour cases from all participating Member States, irrespective of any geographical considerations, past cases or surveys, and adopting a qualitative approach based on objective criteria;

Amendment 2 #

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~~notably from any undue influence o~~n the part of national politic~~f party political, national, administrative or judicial authorities~~, including those with which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is bound to cooperate in conducting its investigations~~;

Amendment 20 #

Sajjad KARIM

Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Underlines the need for clarity as to how the European Public Prosecutor’s Office will work effectively with all Member States;

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 #

Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Member States to ensure the adoption of harmonised measures regarding the recognition and admissibility of evidence submitted by EPPO;

Amendment 23 #

Paragraph 8

8. Recalls that the actions and investigations undertaken by all prosecutors and staff of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office must be conducted in full compliance with the ~~princip~~rules of law, ~~with an emphasis on~~notably with procedural rights such as the respect of the presumption of innocence until a final and irrevocable court ruling has been reached, the right to a fair trial, the right to remain silent, the right to a defence, and the principle of non bis in idem;

Amendment 24 #

Paragraph 8

8. Recalls that the actions and investigations undertaken by all prosecutors and staff of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office must be conducted in full compliance with the principles of law, with an emphasis on the respect of the presumption of innocence until a final and irrevocable court ruling has been reached, the right to a fair trial, the right to remain silent, the right to a defence and legal aid, and the principle of non bis in idem; the conditions for admissibility of evidence should be such as to respect all rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union; the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should actively seek all relevant evidence whether inculpatory or exculpatory;

Amendment 25 #

Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Regrets that in the current proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office the scope of competence is limited to fraud; therefore, once the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is established, calls on the European Commission to propose an enlarged mandate for the Office in order to cover certain categories of serious cross-border crimes, such as organised crime and terrorism;

Amendment 26 #

Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Invites the Council to provide details of the impact on the EU budget which will be brought about by the proposed collegiate structure; believes that in any event the decision concerning the choice of the competent jurisdiction, the decision to prosecute, the decision to dismiss a case, the decision to reallocate a case and the decision on transaction should all be taken at the central level;

Amendment 27 #

Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Affirms that the right to a judicial remedy should be upheld at all times in respect of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s activity; therefore, any decision taken by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should be subject to judicial review before the competent court; in that regard, insists that decisions taken by the European Public Prosecutor before or independently from the trial, such as the decision to launch an investigation, the choice of jurisdiction for prosecution, the dismissal of a case or a transaction, should be subject to judicial review before the Union courts; underlines that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should make good any damage under national law caused by unlawful or wrongful prosecution;

Amendment 28 #

Paragraph 8 d (new)

8d. In addition to the annual report of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on its general activities, the regulation should provide for a review clause in order to counter-check the objectives of the establishment of the Office and the results obtained in order to identify gaps and loopholes which need to be addressed;

Amendment 3 #

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; believes that the position of European Prosecutor should be a full- time position;

Amendment 4 #

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 EU institutions, including those with which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is bound to cooperate in conducting its investigations;

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 #

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 9 #