Abstract
During the discussions on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘EPPO’), the European Parliament had to make the best out of a role in which procedurally it could ultimately only say yes or no to the outcome of the negotiations between the Member States. It has done so by adopting a number of Interim Resolutions with Recommendations to the Council. In preparing its positions Parliament benefited from an in house Appraisal of the Impact Assessment accompanying the Commission Proposal. Parliament has insisted on the establishment of an effective EPPO which respects fundamental rights. Such an EPPO should also be efficient from a resources perspective creating the right synergies with Eurojust and OLAF, which will continue to play an important role in the fight against fraud, particularly now that the EPPO will be established under enhanced cooperation.
The author is Policy Analyst for the Impact Assessment and European Added Value Directorate of the European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They are without prejudice to the positions taken by Parliament on the matters discussed.
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.
- 2.
European Parliament 2015, in accordance with Rule 99(3) of its Rules of Procedure.
- 3.
Articles 313, 314, 317, 318 TFEU.
- 4.
Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law, OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29-41.
- 5.
EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), 2013/0256(COD).
- 6.
- 7.
The setting up of the European External Action Service may serve as another example where Parliament sought to overcome a weak inter-institutional role under the Treaty of Lisbon, by inter alia leveraging its budgetary powers. See Erkelens and Blockmans 2012.
- 8.
Commission 2015; Renda 2015.
- 9.
For further details see Collovà 2015.
- 10.
Davies 2013.
- 11.
Commission Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, SWD (2013) 274 (‘Commission Impact Assessment’), p. 56.
- 12.
Commission Impact Assessment, p. 7.
- 13.
Instead of assuming the required staff is already there; Commission Impact Assessment, p. 36.
- 14.
- 15.
Van Ballegooij and Zandstra 2016.
- 16.
Van Ballegooij and Zandstra 2016, p. 9.
- 17.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2014.
- 18.
Commission Impact Assessment, p. 56.
- 19.
European Parliament 2014.
- 20.
European Parliament 2015a.
- 21.
European Parliament 2016b.
- 22.
European Parliament 2015a, para 15.
- 23.
For a similar assessment see Commission Impact Assessment, p. 45/46.
- 24.
European Parliament 2016b, para 1.
- 25.
Also known as the ‘PIF’ Directive.
- 26.
European Parliament 2016b, para 2.
- 27.
Council 2016, with reference to the Directive as published in the OJ.
- 28.
- 29.
European Parliament 2016b, para 3.
- 30.
Cf. Weyembergh and Brière 2016, Sect. 1.3, pp. 19–21.
- 31.
As defined in Article 13 TEU.
- 32.
European Parliament 2014, para 5(ii); Council text, Article 8.
- 33.
European Parliament 2015a, para 7.
- 34.
European Parliament 2015a, para 8.
- 35.
Council of the European Union, Proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office—State of Play (consolidated text) Doc. 15760/16, 23 December 2016 (‘Council text’).
- 36.
Article 14(2) referring back to Article 13(3) Council text.
- 37.
Article 14(5) Council text.
- 38.
European Parliament 2014, para 5(v).
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
Cf. Weyembergh and Brière 2016, Sect. 3.2, pp. 30–33.
- 42.
For a more detailed comparison of the regime for cross border investigations foreseen by the Council text and the European Investigation Order see the contribution by Csúri.
- 43.
Cf. Van Ballegooij 2015, Sect. 5.2.2.1.
- 44.
Cf. Van Ballegooij and Bárd 2016.
- 45.
- 46.
Weyembergh and Brière 2016, Sect. 3.2.2, p. 33.
- 47.
European Parliamentary Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (2016), Hearing, The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Union’s Judicial cooperation Unit (EUROJUST), 24 May 2016.
- 48.
- 49.
Council text, Articles 36, 22(4).
- 50.
German and Italian delegations (2016) Working Party on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (COPEN)—European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO), WK 473/2016 INIT, 29 July 2016.
- 51.
Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings, OJ L 297, 4.11.2016, pp. 1–8.
- 52.
- 53.
Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, COM (2013) 534, Articles 32–35.
- 54.
See Meijers Committee 2015 for similar criticism.
- 55.
European Parliament 2016b, para 5.
- 56.
Agence Europe 09/07/2016, Slovak Presidency of EU Council requires cost-benefit analysis for European Prosecutor.
- 57.
European Parliament 2016b, para 8.
- 58.
European Parliament 2016a.
- 59.
References
Collovà C (2015) How does ex-ante Impact Assessment work in the EU? European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, PE 528.809
Council (2016) Protection against fraud to the EU budget: Council agrees on its position. Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/12/08-jha-protection-against-fraud/. Accessed January 2017
Davies A (2013) Initial appraisal of a European Commission Impact Assessment European Commission proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, PE 514.087
Drew S (2015) How will the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) be born? In: Asp P (ed) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Legal and Criminal Policy Perspectives. Stockholm University, Stockholm, pp 13–30
Erkelens LH, Blockmans S (2012) Setting up the External Action Service: An Act of Institutional Balance. European Constitutional Law Review, 8:246–279
European Commission (2015) European Commission website on Better Regulation. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/index_en.htm. Accessed January 2017
European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) (2014) Cornerstones for a draft regulation on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Available at http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/201300207_ECBACORNERSTONESONEPPO.pdf. Accessed January 2017
European Parliament (2014) Resolution of 12 March 2014 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, P7_TA(2014)0234. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2014-0234&language=GA. Accessed January 2017
European Parliament (2015a) Resolution of 29 April 2015 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, P8_TA(2015)0173. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0173+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. Accessed January 2017
European Parliament (2015b) Rules of Procedure, September 2015. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+20150909+TOC+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN. Accessed January 2017
European Parliamentary Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) (2016) Hearing, The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit (EUROJUST), 24 May 2016. Web stream available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20160524-1500-COMMITTEE-LIBE. Accessed January 2017
European Parliament (2016a) Oral Question O-000093/2016: European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Eurojust. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+OQ+O-2016-000093+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. Accessed January 2017
European Parliament (2016b) Resolution of 5 October 2016 on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Eurojust, P8_TA (2016)0376. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0376+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. Accessed January 2017
European Parliament (2016c) Resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (2015/2254(INL)), P8_TA-PROV (2016) 0409. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0409+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. Accessed January 2017
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014) (FRA) Opinion on a proposal to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Available at http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-opinion-european-public-prosecutors-office_en.pdf. Accessed January 2017
Luchtman M, Ouwerkerk J, van Noorloos M, Geelhoed W, Rijpma J, Middelkoop L (2015) Fundamental Rights and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office: An uncomfortable silence. EU law analysis, 10 April 2015. Available at http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.nl/2015/04/fundamental-rights-and-european-public.html. Accessed January 2017
Luchtman M, Vervaele J (2014) European Agencies for Criminal Justice and Shared Enforcement (Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office). Utrecht Law Review, 10:5, pp 132–150
Meijers Committee (2015) Gaps and inconsistencies in legal protection in EU criminal law, CM 1503, Legal Protection and the future European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Available at https://www.eerstekamer.nl/bijlage/20151030/cm1503_legal_protection_and_the/document3/f=/vjylev0k37v1.pdf Accessed January 2017
Piris JC (2010) The Lisbon Treaty: A Legal and Political Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Renda A (2015) Too good to be true. A quick assessment of the European Commission’s new Better Regulation Package. CEPS special report, No 108. Available at https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/SR108AR_BetterRegulation.pdf. Accessed January 2017
Van Ballegooij W (2015) The Nature of Mutual Recognition in European Law. Re-examining the notion from an individual rights perspective with a view to its further development in the criminal justice area. Intersentia, Antwerp
Van Ballegooij W, Bárd P (2016) Mutual recognition and individual rights: did the Court get it right? New Journal of European Criminal Law, 7, Issue 4: pp 439–464
Van Ballegooij W, Evas T (2016) An EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights. European Added Value Assessment accompanying the Legislative initiative report (Rapporteur Sophie in ‘t Veld). European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, PE.579.328
Van Ballegooij W, Zandstra T (2016) Organised Crime and Corruption. Cost of Non-Europe Report. European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, PE 558.779
Weyembergh A, Brière C (2016) Towards a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Study for the LIBE Committee. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, European Parliament, PE 571.399
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Ballegooij, W. (2018). European Public Prosecutor’s Office—A View on the State of Play and Perspectives from the European Parliament. In: Geelhoed, W., Erkelens, L., Meij, A. (eds) Shifting Perspectives on the European Public Prosecutor's Office. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-216-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-216-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-215-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-216-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)