BETA
Home MEPs Dossiers Committees Subjects Blog About Dumps
download json


2016/2750(RSP) Resolution on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Eurojust

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead LIBE
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 136-p5

Events

2016/10/05
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
Documents
Results of vote in Parliament
2016/10/05
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution, tabled by the EPP, S&D, ALDE and Greens/EFA groups, on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Eurojust.

Parliament reaffirmed its longstanding support for the establishment of an efficient and independent European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in order to reduce the current fragmentation of national law enforcement efforts to protect the EU budget, thus strengthening the fight against fraud in the European Union. It recalled that according to a recent study on the VAT gap in the EU-28 Member States, an overwhelming EUR 159.5 billion in value added tax (VAT) revenues was lost across the EU in 2014 .

The resolution called on the Council to:

provide an unambiguous and clear set of competences and proceedings concerning the EPPO based on the proposed directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (PIF Directive); strengthen its efforts to find agreement on the PIF Directive which includes VAT in its scope , and to reopen negotiations with Parliament, in order to enable the EPPO to be established.

Members stressed that the EPPO should have priority competence for offences defined in the PIF Directive . It also expressed deep regret that the Council does not allow the EPPO to be competent in PIF cases where EU funding exceeds EUR 10 000 but does not represent 50 % or more of the co-financing.

Parliament called on the Council to reopen the debate on Articles 17 to 20 of the consolidated text of the EPPO proposal in order to ensure more clarity and efficiency for the EPPO; calls on the Council to clarify the prosecution competences of the EPPO and the national prosecutors in cases of (a) multiple offences (one organised group committing several crimes, e.g. money laundering and trafficking in human beings) and (b) mixed offences (more than one criminal offence committed in one criminal act, e.g. VAT fraud and money laundering).

Parliament also insisted on the need to:

ensure that the EPPO should have sufficient investigative measures available to conduct its investigations; subject any operational decision affecting third parties taken by the EPPO to judicial review before a competent national court ; direct judicial review by the European Court of Justice should be possible; ensure the independence of the EPPO , such as a provision allowing derogation from the national link on grounds related to the proper functioning of the office; ensure that the protection of the procedural rights of suspected and accused persons must be guaranteed. The regulation should provide for additional rights of defence for EPPO suspects, in particular the right to legal aid, the right to information and access to case materials, and the right to present evidence.

Lastly, recalling the importance of Eurojust’s role in improving the judicial cooperation and coordination of the relevant judicial authorities of the Member States and in supporting investigations involving non-EU countries, Parliament called on the Council to clarify the relations between Eurojust and the EPPO , as well as the EPPO’s relation with OLAF, in order to differentiate between their respective roles in the protection of the EU’s financial interests.

Documents
T8-0376/2016
2016/10/05
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2016/10/04
   EP - Motion for a resolution
Documents
B8-1054/2016
2016/10/04
   EP - Debate in Parliament
Documents
Debate in Parliament
2016/10/03
   EP - Oral question/interpellation by Parliament
Documents
B8-0715/2016
2016/10/03
   EP - Oral question/interpellation by Parliament
Documents
B8-0716/2016

Documents

  • Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
  • Decision by Parliament: T8-0376/2016
  • Motion for a resolution: B8-1054/2016
  • Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
  • Oral question/interpellation by Parliament: B8-0715/2016
  • Oral question/interpellation by Parliament: B8-0716/2016
  • Oral question/interpellation by Parliament: B8-0715/2016
  • Oral question/interpellation by Parliament: B8-0716/2016
  • Motion for a resolution: B8-1054/2016

Activities

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

2021-12-18Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2016-1054_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2016-1054_EN.html
events/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20161004&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-8-2016-10-04-TOC_EN.html
events/2
date
2016-10-05T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0376_EN.html title: T8-0376/2016
summary
events/2
date
2016-10-05T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0376_EN.html title: T8-0376/2016
summary
2020-01-19Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2016-1054&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2016-1054_EN.html
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0376
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0376_EN.html
2019-09-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/date
    2019-07-06Show (13) Changes | Timetravel
    activities
    • date: 2016-10-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20161004&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
    • date: 2016-10-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0376 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0376/2016 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
    commission
    • body: EC dg: Justice and Consumers commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra
    committees/0
    type
    Responsible Committee
    body
    EP
    committee_full
    Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
    committee
    LIBE
    associated
    False
    date
    committees/0
    body
    EP
    responsible
    True
    committee_full
    Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
    committee
    LIBE
    docs
    • date: 2016-10-03T00:00:00 docs: title: B8-0715/2016 type: Oral question/interpellation by Parliament body: EP
    • date: 2016-10-03T00:00:00 docs: title: B8-0716/2016 type: Oral question/interpellation by Parliament body: EP
    • date: 2016-10-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2016-1054&language=EN title: B8-1054/2016 type: Motion for a resolution body: EP
    events
    • date: 2016-10-04T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20161004&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
    • date: 2016-10-05T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=27646&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
    • date: 2016-10-05T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0376 title: T8-0376/2016 summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution, tabled by the EPP, S&D, ALDE and Greens/EFA groups, on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Eurojust. Parliament reaffirmed its longstanding support for the establishment of an efficient and independent European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in order to reduce the current fragmentation of national law enforcement efforts to protect the EU budget, thus strengthening the fight against fraud in the European Union. It recalled that according to a recent study on the VAT gap in the EU-28 Member States, an overwhelming EUR 159.5 billion in value added tax (VAT) revenues was lost across the EU in 2014 . The resolution called on the Council to: provide an unambiguous and clear set of competences and proceedings concerning the EPPO based on the proposed directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (PIF Directive); strengthen its efforts to find agreement on the PIF Directive which includes VAT in its scope , and to reopen negotiations with Parliament, in order to enable the EPPO to be established. Members stressed that the EPPO should have priority competence for offences defined in the PIF Directive . It also expressed deep regret that the Council does not allow the EPPO to be competent in PIF cases where EU funding exceeds EUR 10 000 but does not represent 50 % or more of the co-financing. Parliament called on the Council to reopen the debate on Articles 17 to 20 of the consolidated text of the EPPO proposal in order to ensure more clarity and efficiency for the EPPO; calls on the Council to clarify the prosecution competences of the EPPO and the national prosecutors in cases of (a) multiple offences (one organised group committing several crimes, e.g. money laundering and trafficking in human beings) and (b) mixed offences (more than one criminal offence committed in one criminal act, e.g. VAT fraud and money laundering). Parliament also insisted on the need to: ensure that the EPPO should have sufficient investigative measures available to conduct its investigations; subject any operational decision affecting third parties taken by the EPPO to judicial review before a competent national court ; direct judicial review by the European Court of Justice should be possible; ensure the independence of the EPPO , such as a provision allowing derogation from the national link on grounds related to the proper functioning of the office; ensure that the protection of the procedural rights of suspected and accused persons must be guaranteed. The regulation should provide for additional rights of defence for EPPO suspects, in particular the right to legal aid, the right to information and access to case materials, and the right to present evidence. Lastly, recalling the importance of Eurojust’s role in improving the judicial cooperation and coordination of the relevant judicial authorities of the Member States and in supporting investigations involving non-EU countries, Parliament called on the Council to clarify the relations between Eurojust and the EPPO , as well as the EPPO’s relation with OLAF, in order to differentiate between their respective roles in the protection of the EU’s financial interests.
    • date: 2016-10-05T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
    links
    other
    • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra
    procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
    Old
    LIBE/8/06583
    New
    • LIBE/8/06583
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure EP 136-p5
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 128-p5
    procedure/subject
    Old
    • 7.40.04 Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
    • 8.70.04 Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
    New
    7.40.04
    Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
    8.70.04
    Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
    procedure/subtype
    Old
    Debate or resolution on oral questions
    New
    Debate or resolution on oral question/interpellation
    2016-10-07Show (8) Changes | Timetravel
    activities/0/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20161004&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
    activities/0/type
    Old
    Debate in plenary scheduled
    New
    Debate in Parliament
    activities/1/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0376 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0376/2016
    activities/1/type
    Old
    Vote in plenary scheduled
    New
    Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
    procedure/stage_reached
    Old
    Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
    New
    Procedure completed
    procedure/subject/0
    7.40.04 Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
    procedure/subject/1
    Old
    7.40 Judicial cooperation
    New
    8.70.04 Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
    procedure/title
    Old
    European Public Prosecutor's office and Eurojust
    New
    Resolution on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Eurojust
    2016-09-16Show (5) Changes
    activities
    • date: 2016-10-04T00:00:00 body: EP type: Debate in plenary scheduled
    • date: 2016-10-05T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in plenary scheduled
    committees
    • body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee: LIBE
    links
    other
    • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra
    procedure
    dossier_of_the_committee
    LIBE/8/06583
    reference
    2016/2750(RSP)
    title
    European Public Prosecutor's office and Eurojust
    legal_basis
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 128-p5
    stage_reached
    Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
    subtype
    Debate or resolution on oral questions
    type
    RSP - Resolutions on topical subjects
    subject
    7.40 Judicial cooperation
    @parltrack
    @parltrack@eupolicy.social
    [javascript protected email address]
    code AGPLv3.0+
    data ODBLv1.0
    site content CC-By-Sa-3.0

    ParlTrack - 2011-2024

    © European Union, 2011 – Source: European Parliament
    Hosted by AS250.net Foundation