Abstract
The procedure for entering plea agreements in the realm of the EPPO proceedings has been a much-discussed issue. Due to the diverse forms of negotiated justice within the EU Member States it has not been easy to come to an agreement on this point. While the initial proposal regulated an own system of transactions, the final Regulation 2017/1939 has adopted a compromised solution under the title “simplified prosecution procedures”. The rules governing agreements with the EPPO are those applicable under the national laws. The solution adopted avoids a complex path towards harmonization. Due to the significance of negotiated justice in practice, this contribution will also analyse the impact the EPPO Regulation’s “simplified procedures” in the Spanish criminal justice system.
Mercedes de Prada is Lecturer at the University Centre Villanueva (UCM).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017, implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“the EPPO”), 31.10.2017, L 283/1. In force, since November 20, 2017.
- 2.
Zárate Conde and De Prada (2015) indicate that once the Proposal had been submitted by the European Commission, a total of 14 States Members considered that it did not respect the subsidiarity procedure. This proposal was referred back to the Commission for reconsideration in accordance with Article 7(2) of Protocol No. 2 of the TFEU. The Commission, by the communication COM (2013) 851, maintained its initial position and submitted its proposal for a European Public Prosecutor’s Office COM (2013) 534 final in July 2013.
- 3.
On the added value of the EPPO see Bachmaier Winter (2015), pp. 121 ff.
- 4.
See the Strategic Agenda of the Advice of the European Union, which emphasizes the consolidation and the efficiency of the existing instruments in the field of cooperation in criminal matters and the fight of the fraud against the financial interests of the European Union, including the Regulation on the EPPO, stands out.
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12396-2015-INIT/en/pdf.
- 5.
- 6.
See Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, 17.7.2013, COM (2013) 534 final and Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), Brussels, 17.7.2013 COM(2013) 535 final.
- 7.
- 8.
Zárate Conde and De Prada (2015), p. 4.
- 9.
On the structure and functions of the European instruments related to criminal prosecution, see Ormazábal Sánchez (2009), pp. 4 ff.
- 10.
See Article 86 TFEU.
- 11.
Zárate Conde and González Campos (2015), pp. 32 ff.
- 12.
See Del Moral García (2015), p. 6.
- 13.
See Montero Aroca (2015), pp. 349–350.
- 14.
- 15.
Del Moral García (2015), p. 7.
- 16.
Circular of the State General Prosecutor Office 1/2015 “On guidelines for the exercise of criminal action in relation to minor offenses” after the criminal reform operated by the Organic Law 1/2015. It establishes the way in which this principle of opportunity should be exercised.
- 17.
See Bachmaier Winter (2015), pp. 89–113.
- 18.
Article 694 Spanish CPC.
- 19.
Rodríguez García (2015), p. 11.
- 20.
For the legal framework of the guilty pleas or conformidad in Spain, see Bachmaier Winter (2015), pp. 97 ff.
- 21.
- 22.
CoE Recommendation (87)18, of 17 September 1987, concerning the simplification of criminal justice.
- 23.
Castillejo Manzanares (2015), p. 6.
- 24.
- 25.
De Prada and Zárate Conde (2015).
- 26.
Criticizing the article on transactions according to the Proposal of the Commission for not providing for judicial oversight, see Moreno Catena (2014), pp. 159 ff.
- 27.
The new text was presented at the 3433rd Council Meeting of Justice and Internal Affairs, which took place in Brussels, 3 and 4 of December 2015, after diverse preparatory works carried out by the COREPER II, and also following the text presented by Austria. file:///C:/Users/MiniW7-2/Downloads/QCRU09001ENC.pdf.
- 28.
- 29.
The drafting of the judicial review has been approached from two perspectives, the first being to consider the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, in the exercise of its functions when adopting procedural measures, as a national authority, and the second one to understand that the procedural measures taken by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office within the scope of its powers shall be subject to an oversight of legality before the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the provisions of Article 263 of the Treaty, and corresponding to the courts of the Member States, except as provided for in Article 267 of the Treaty, to review the decisions taken by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by national law.
- 30.
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/st15391.en16%20(1).pdf.
- 31.
See Recital (8) of the EPPO Regulation. Furthermore, by means of several letters of 19 April 2017, 1 June 2017, 9 June 2017 and June 22, 2017, Latvia, Estonia, Austria and Italy, respectively, indicated their desire to participate in the establishment of enhanced cooperation.
- 32.
However, the provision is not clear enough to know the scope of the review carried out, respectively, by the national judges and by the ECJ. The text so limits the jurisdiction of the ECJ to questions of validity raised on the basis of Union law (Article. 42.2.a)).
- 33.
Despite the agenda presented by the Spanish Ministry of Justice on 5 December 2016, stating that one of the priorities was to amend the Criminal Procedure Code and transfer the competences to direct the criminal investigation to the public prosecution service, no major changes have been undertaken so far.
- 34.
LO 1/2015 has decriminalized the misdemeanours and the frauds of 4000–50,000 euros have been aggravated transforming them into less serious crimes under Article 305(3) of the Penal Code.
- 35.
For the material competence of the EPPO, see Vilas Álvarez in this volume.
- 36.
Regarding the criticisms of this wording of art. 36, we can summarize them into two categories: the first, the abstraction and the lack of clarity and uncertainty that the EPPO, its national counterparts, the judicial power (national courts and the ECJ) and all interested parties create by not making clear who is the body exactly competent to review transactions; and secondly, to the compatibility of the text with the primary law of the Union. According to the new text, procedural acts of the EPPO that are intended to produce legal effects against third parties are the subject of national judicial review. See Ligeti (2013), pp. 36 ff.
References
Aguilera Morales M (1998) El principio de consenso: la conformidad en el proceso penal español. Cedecs, Barcelona
Bachmaier Winter L (2012) La propuesta de directiva europea sobre la orden de investigación penal: valoración crítica de los motivos de denegación. Diario La Ley 7992:6–12
Bachmaier Winter L (2015) The potential contribution of a European Public Prosecutor. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Just:121–144
Barona Vilar S (1994) La conformidad en el proceso penal. Tirant Lo Blanch, Valencia
Castillejo Manzanares R (2015) Últimas reformas procesales. El proceso por aceptación de decreto. Diario La Ley 8544, p 2
Chozas Alonso JM (2013) La conformidad penal española y el patteggiamento italiano. La Ley Penal 104:2
De Diego Díez LA (1997) La conformidad del acusado. Tirant Lo Blanch, Valencia
De Prada M, Zárate Conde A (2015) El Fiscal Europeo: una aproximación a un gran desafío. Diario La Ley 3402
Del Moral García A (2015) Otra vez sobre conformidad y conformidades en el proceso penal. In: Herrero-Tejedor Algar F (ed) Liber Amicorum, Cólex, Madrid, p 6 ff
Ligeti K (ed) (2013) Toward a prosecutor for the European Union, vol. 1: a comparative analysis. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Mira Ros C (1998) Régimen actual de la conformidad. Cólex, Madrid
Montero Aroca J (2015) Derecho Jurisdiccional III. Proceso Penal. Tirant Lo Blanch, Valencia
Moreno Catena V (2014) Fiscalía Europea y Derechos Fundamentales. Tirant Lo Blanch, Valencia
Ormazábal Sánchez G (2009) Hacia una autoridad de persecución criminal común para Europa: reflexiones acerca de la conveniencia de crear una Fiscalía europea y sobre el papel de EUROJUST. La Ley Penal 56:4
Rodríguez García N (1997) La justicia penal negociada. Experiencias de Derecho Comparado. Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca
Rodríguez García N (2015) La conformidad de las personas jurídicas en el proceso penal español. La Ley Penal 113:6
Zárate Conde A, De Prada M (2015) La Fiscalía Europea: una realidad cada vez más cercana. Diario La Ley 6536
Zárate Conde A, González Campos E (2015) Derecho Penal. Parte General. La Ley, Madrid
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zárate Conde, A., de Prada Rodríguez, M. (2018). Transactions and “Simplified Procedures” in the Framework of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. A National Perspective. In: Bachmaier Winter, L. (eds) The European Public Prosecutor's Office. Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93916-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93916-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93915-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93916-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)