Activities of Salvatore IACOLINO related to 2013/0255(APP)
Plenary speeches (3)
European Public Prosecutor's Office (A7-0141/2014 - Salvatore Iacolino) (vote)
European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate)
European Public Prosecutor's Office (debate)
Reports (1)
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 (7)
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i
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 50 #
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 actoffences 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 reviewedAs 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 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv
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 73 #
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 superiorjudicial 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 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii
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 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point i
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 perensure at central level the appropriate skills, experience and knowledge of the legal systems of the Member States;
Amendment 109 #
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 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;