Activities of Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN related to 2013/0255(APP)
Plenary speeches (3)
Enhanced cooperation: European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate) DE
European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate) DE
European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate) DE
Shadow reports (1)
RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“the EPPO”) PDF (469 KB) DOC (57 KB)
Amendments (20)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
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 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Deems it crucial to ensure within a short period of time the establishment of a single, strong, 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 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
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 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
An independent European Public Prosecutor's Office
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
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 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
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 adequatethe 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 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
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 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
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 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
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 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
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 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes note that the option of a collegiate structure is under scrutiny by the Member States, instead of the hierarchical one initially proposed by the European Commission; in this regard, believes that the decisions concerning the choice of the competent jurisdiction, the dismissal ofecision 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 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
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 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
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 executedrequested 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 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Council to ensureprovide 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 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
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 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
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 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
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 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls thatGiven 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 shouldto carry out its activities within full respect for the rights enshrined inof 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 legal framework provided by the Union on theislative 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 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
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 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
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;