Activities of Jan Philipp ALBRECHT related to 2013/0255(APP)
Plenary speeches (7)
Enhanced cooperation: European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate) DE
Enhanced cooperation: European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate) DE
European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate) DE
European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate) DE
European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate)
European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate)
European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate)
Shadow reports (3)
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)
INTERIM REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office PDF (261 KB) DOC (209 KB)
INTERIM REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office PDF (301 KB) DOC (176 KB)
Amendments (22)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas crime - in particular organised crime- is increasingly taking on a cross- border dimension and the onlys against the Union’s financial interests generate significant financial damages every year and an effective response can comeis needed from the EU giving added value to the joint efforts of all the Member States
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i
Paragraph 4 – point i
(i) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office should operate in the strictest compli observance withof the principle of the natural court, which requires that the non- discretionaryght 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 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii
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 suggestdemands 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 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 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iii
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 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv
Paragraph 4 – point iv
(iv) The admissibility of evidence and its assessment in accordance with Article 30 are key elements in the ascertainment of guiltcriminal 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 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 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv a (new)
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 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 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v
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 competenceancillary 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 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 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v a (new)
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)
Paragraph 4 – point v b (new)
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point i
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 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point ii
Paragraph 5 – point ii
(ii) compliance with the ne bis in idem principle should be ensured;xplicitly ensured in the wording of the regulation.
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii
Paragraph 5 – point iii
(iii) tThe prosecution should reconcile legal certainty withcomply 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 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point iii
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;